Illumination 2.0

Over the last month I've had a lot to think about.  I visited several 3rd grade classes to teach kids about plant biology.  They all learned what makes plants unique from animals and how plants grow and develop.  In each class we did a simple experiment with two test tubes, two seeds, and two pieces of foil. Each tube contained a milliliter of water/agar. The kids would add one seed to each tube. They would wrap one in foil, leave the other uncovered, then scrunch up the other piece of foil as a base. Thirty minutes, a few cents of science surplus, and a huge retreat from book science for the kids. The elegant simplicity of plant development. The happiness that comes when someone that is not their teacher brings them stuff! They went nuts, as always. They loved the test tubes, the seeds, and any  science stuff you could give them. They were all excited to participate in science . In third grade science is still cool. Special guest talks at local schools remind me about ho

Awesome.  For the second time in as many days I have been blocked from providing scientific content to rants on YouTube regarding California Proposition 37.  After all, it is about the Right to Know, as long as it is something they want to hear! The situation happened on a YouTube video " That Monsanto does not want you to see, Brought to you by Nutiva and Elevate" .  It presents Danny DeVito, Bill (don't vaccinate your kids) Maher, and other Hollywood luminaries that I don't recognize.  They tell us that it is a 'right to know' what's in our food, a point I don't organically disagree with, yet maintain that prop37 is an inappropriate, highly flawed, vehicle. So I begin to comment in the 'comments' section under the name "Swampwaffle".  You can see, my comments are scientific, concise, polite and engaging.  I invite opportunities to share evidence and partake in a scholarly discussion.  With one particularly energetic person who r

Dr. Ena Valikov is a Veterinarian from Huntington Beach, CA.  She frequently comments on posts, usually those regarding transgenic technologies, and presents coherent arguments that elevate the discussion.  She has a background in biochemistry so she speaks science well and can discuss the literature. Yesterday morning my gmail account posted several responses to my September 21 post. There were two there from Dr. Ena.  I was excited to read them and prepare my responses. Yet when I looked at the comment section of the article one of her comments was not there.  Instead, there was an appropriately cynical comment from Dr. Ena about censoring the comments. I have no idea what happened or where her comment disappeared to.  However, I was disappointed and upset for several reasons.  First, I appreciate an informed rebuttal because I am the first to admit, I might be wrong.   I'm glad to consider all evidence in my synthesis.  Second, I would never, and have never censored a comme

My email box exploded with new messages.  A flurry of notes contained a link to a new peer-reviewed paper, a work showing that rats fed “GMO” corn developed massive tumors and died early, compared to controls.  Immediately I smelled a Seralini paper. A click on the link did not disappoint-- it's Seralini again.  I was electronically whisked to a PDF of the whole text and began to read.  Within minutes I was blown away by the lack of rigor, poor experimental design, attention to controls and loose statistics.  Most of all, I was blown away by the conclusions drawn by a study with tiny numbers of subjects in a rat line known to grow endochrine tumors. The anti-GMO interests were quick to anoint this new work as a rigorous pillar of exceptional science, a hard-science detailing of the danger of transgenic food.  They want this to influence public policy. I was really impressed by how the scientific media and the science blogosphere pounced.  The best names in the busin

As an academic research scientist active at the public interface, I enjoy communicating about complex science topics. With regard to trasngenic (GMO) crops, if you read my blogs, comments left online, or listen to audiences in public discussions, you'll see that they ultimately reach a common point. Someone always indicates that Monsanto is my employer . Like clockwork. I'm still waiting for the check. Actually, I never worked for them, consulted for them, or received a dime from them. As a university scientist my funding is all public record, so this may be verified.  Here is why the throw-away "you work for Monsanto" or "shill for Monsanto" comment harms the anti-GMO movement:  1. It immediately says that you are willing to make up information in the absence of evidence. 2. It says that you are finished with the conversation, that nothing I communicate is valid in your opinion. 3. It shows that you are willing to try to influence other like-mind

We are currently witnessing the USDA public commentary period on the Arctic Apple, a transgenic apple that does not exhibit browning upon injury or cutting.   The anti-browning trait was installed by scientists at Okanagan Specialty Fruits. A copy of the apple gene for polyphenol oxidase (PPO) was overexpressed, which triggers a plant response to silence the over-expressed gene.   The same process also suppresses the apple’s endogenous PPO genes. Trees have been growing for ten years and are poised for widespread adoption.  But as expected, the critics have now emerged against this non-browning apple.  They say that the apples are untested in humans, that the pollen will contaminate other plants.  They say that it is unnatural and will need more pesticide.  But the same criticisms were strangely silent against what was essentially the Arctic Grape.  A major genetic alteration affected the PPO gene of the ‘Sultana’ grape, a genetic change that was unknown, uncharacterized and uni

Sorry tech geeks.  This is about fruits, not phones.   The Arctic Apple is a new product currently undergoing regulatory approval in the United States and Canada. It was developed by a small biotech company in Summerland BC, Canada, so save the Monsanto comments. It is a non-browning apple, created using transgenic technology (probably cisgenic).  Browning is a reaction to damage. This can be cutting or bruising.  An enzyme called polyphenol oxidase (or PPO) mediates this process.  Without PPO, no browning occurs.  A silenced gene inhibits browning.  A great development for  growers and consumers. Apples have four PPO genes.  In the Arctic Apple these genes are silenced, likely using RNAi technology.  In a very basic explanation, the native apple PPO gene is expressed in a way that causes the other PPO genes to be shut down.  The potential benefits?  The details are here .  Huge amounts of apple fruits are culled from the tree, damaged from post-harvest handling, or are