Illumination 2.0

  A relatively safe agricultural chemical is demonized as a carcinogen, lobbyists pose as journalists and stoke fear, NGOs defy science to advance agenda, lawyers make a fortune, science suffers and farmers lose options.  A population lives in fear of its food.  This is the fallout of the IARC decision.  In today's podcast I speak with Dr. David Zaruk, a professor that understands risk and has examined the IARC decisions and the internal politics and gyrations of vilifying an agricultural compound, straight from the tort law playbook.

Sterile insect technique is the process of treating insects with radiation to damage their DNA to render them unable to reproduce, and then releasing them into populations of the same species. Within a generation the numbers plummet.  This is a great approach for A. egyptii mosquitoes, as a genetic solution can slow spread of Yellow Fever, Dengue, Malaria, Zika, West Nile and a host of other diseases. It is better to control insects with genetics rather than insecticides. Oxitech takes this one further and produces sterile insects using a larval-lethal gene that they can turn off in the lab.  Lab grown mosquitoes grow just fine, adults are sorted into males and females, and males are released to mate and pass on the lethal gene to populations that spread disease. The next generation, well, isn't.  But control is not complete and by definition , the engineered mosquitoes must mate with local populations . It is important to note that the local populations of A. egypti...

Dr. Elisabeth Bik is amazing, with an eagle eye on publication misconduct. She voluntarily scans the scientific literature, looking carefully at images of cells and gels. Sometimes she finds that data have been fabricated. She reports this to journal editors, and hopes that the journals take appropriate action. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.  Sometimes there is fallout.  She is taking a huge risk to ensure the integrity of the literature, as careers can hang in the balance, and she sets herself up for professional and personal peril.  We owe her a great debt and need to know her story and stand behind her. Please listen to her story.  This week's podcast. 

I had a most wonderful conversation with Kelsey Smith at CanSurvivor.  We discussed issues in health and nutrition, genetics and technology, along with some hints on the next-generation of new cancer therapies that are on the scientific horizon.  She was so much fun to talk to, and we share a forward-thinking and optimistic look at technology and the promises it holds for food and medicine. 

Could a prophylactic powder from GMO rice stop HIV transmission in the Developing World? Dr. Evangelia Vamaka and her team have developed the technology, and it works well so far... This week's podcast with Lethbridge Alberta Canada high school student Michelle Wu. Listen to the podcast here. 

I liked visiting the US-RTK Facebook page a lot like I liked visiting the dentist.  Yes, it is uncomfortable at times, but I leave feeling like something was accomplished.  The difference is that in the dentist office I just leave behind spit water. On the US-RTK Facebook page I leave behind compelling information that helps link their followers to legitimate science.  At least I used to.  I was a "Top Fan" of the site, a designation given to those with frequent comments.  This week I returned from Australia and spent nights up late, taking advantage of jet lag.  I was working on a couple of work projects, but would check over at US-RTK now and then.  I frequently commented.  Kindly.  Lovingly.  With great respect and patience.  And it drove them crazy.  I took a few screenshots.  I'd comment on something that they posted that was not quite true (imagine that), using science as a basis for the discussion.  T...

The Scientific American article about "dying broccoli" and "toxic corn" drew wide criticism for its unreferenced and outright false indictment of modern agriculture, and flimsy treatment of concepts in microbiomes.  My dissection can be seen here.   I contacted the editors, and apparently others did too. I was shocked to find out that there was no peer review or expert consultation.  The editors kindly returned a conscientious and conciliatory email that suggested they made a mistake and the authors would revise.  Personally, nothing short of a full retraction was a remedy.  That first article was absolutely horrible, D.O.A. horrible. Not only did it vilify farmers, it scared people about food, and misinformed them about basic biology, and it was done under the banner of Scientific American , a trusted popular scientific brand.   Out of the frying pan... The editors published a "corrected" version.  I learned of the revision via Twit...