Revealing Piped Pipers Breaking the Social Contract
With the right to know comes the obligation to learn…
…..and a Duty to teach Truthfully???
I think that public scientists have become entirely too comfortable weaving infantilizing fairy tales instead of communicating science. See here, here, here or here for example.
No doubt you’ve read that GMOs are a clean and precise science of insertion of “just one gene.” The Addition of one patented gene to seed– an inheritance– and the culmination of thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding by millions of farmers and scientists globally.
This dumbing down is particularly perverse in the agricultural biotechnology sphere. The very same scientists are complaining that public rejects GMOs due to science illiteracy and pervasive misinformation by “anti-GMO” advocates— are ironically the exact very same ones who dish out Dr. Seuss science and outright bullshit in Budweiser Clydesdales’ -sized manure shovels– betraying public trust.
Colby College put together what was billed as an honest, multi-layered substantive debate about GMOs. So let us review the strength of his argument using one of the most recent GMO debate for illustrative purposes.
GMO Debate at Colby College
I tried to understand Professor Stephen Moss’ message by following his five fundamental points—see if you can. I noted the time of statements I’ll address to the left in blue to unpack and illustrate the claims. Please check the number of half-truths, obfuscations, and bingo-worthy brainwashing nuggets you find in a mere five minutes!
Check the time clock- it’s the reason I posted it and, please correct my math.
Crop Scientist’s FIVE core points
10:50 Point #1 Define GMOs…..Ask Jimmy Kimmel to define them!
For those who haven’t seen it yet, Jimmy, adhering to the most stringent statistically based polling principles, questioned a select group of four or five random people to define GMOs.
Why did he do it?
You know that the public- all millions of us- are ignoramuses, right?
Bingo!
If you’ve been following this debate, you’ll recognize a favorite narrative of the Agrochemical Corporations pro-GMO sales staff, casting skeptics of their merchandise as science illiterate idiots. When they aren’t framed as outright murderers, that is, for daring to question Vitamin A fortified GMOs- that sacred cow deserves its future post.
Selling defective merchandise demands a sales staff wearing laboratory coats- pretend “independent” scientists.
12:10 Point #2 Conflation of GMOs- Products of genetic engineering (merchandise)- with science itself– as well as traditional breeding to mislead into “a long history of safe use” that doesn’t exist.
Often supported with “billions of animals and trillions of GMO meals served without one incidence of harm.”
- We’ve only been ingesting transgenic GMOs since 1996 while humans have eaten crops modified through selective breeding for millennia. Organic foods, or simply food as our moms and grandparents called, it has a very long history of safe use. It derives from millions of trial and error experiments conducted by billions of people globally
- Monsanto’s transgenes began infesting food in the nineties and their safety tests haven’t convinced me GMOs are safe for rats, yet.
- The Cartagena international bio-safety agreements stipulate novelty and experimental nature of these foods,
- as well as National Academy of Sciences
In fact, if you click on te National Academy of Sciences link and forward to page 4, you’ll find a great graphic depicting relative risk of unintended effects.
You will learn that transformation of distantly related species with a gene gun employed in the most prevalent commercialized Round Up Ready corn is among the most genetically disruptive and most likely to result in unintended adverse effects.
Genetic Engineering is VERY DIFFERENT from traditional breeding
“Traditional Breeding (i.e. its biological basis: sexual reproduction):
- Evolved over eons (along with “checkpoint” mechanisms to eliminate mistakes)
- Occurs between closely related organisms
- Genetic exchange occurs in reproductive cells,
- and occurs between related chromosomes,
- through homologous recombination
- Amount of DNA and spacing between genes remain the same
Versus
(Traditional) Genetic Engineering (particularly of crop plants):
- Is human-made, recently (and subject to human and other errors)
- Involves any gene from any organism (alive or dead) or synthesized in a lab
- Occurs in somatic cells
- Insertion into chromosomes occurs “randomly”
- Causes insertional mutation of recipient’s genes at rates of 27-63%
- Gene spacing and amount of genomic DNA are altered
- Involves “selectable marker” genes (e.g. kanamycin-resistance gene)
@beachvetlbc @JodiKoberinski @BioSRPhttp://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2010/02/11/are-some-scientists-just-taking-the-cis-out-of-genetic-engineering-pt-i/ …http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2010/02/12/are-some-scientists-just-taking-the-cis-out-of-genetic-engineering-pt-ii/ …http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2010/02/15/is-genetic-engineering-just-like-breeding/ …
Is genetic engineering just like breeding?
By Prof. Jack Heinemann* Dr. Nina Federoff, the science advisor to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced more blatantly in New Zealand what many other advocates of large-scale plantings…
sciblogs.co.nz
@beachvetlbc @JodiKoberinski Fine article. I like your point that the #Biotech ‘engineers’ edited the book before they had read it!
Footnotes:
- Science is unavailable for peer review, is hidden behind multiple paywalls or is unpublished for confidentiality reasons.
- And the novel genetically “improved” plant is unlabeled.
- And finally, the most prevalent GMO is sprayed with glyphosate. Please do me a favor and click on the glyphosate link.
- Why can’t we have an honest GMO debate?
Betrayal is the breaking or violation of a presumptive contract, trust, or confidence that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is […] a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others. Someone who betrays others is commonly called a traitor or betrayer.
