Illumination 2.0

Universities are quick to shout discoveries and breakthroughs from the highest mountaintops. When big news comes from the lab, a communications department springs to action, broadcasting the breakthrough throughout the public media. Autism is a series of disorders affecting many children and adults. Over the years the numbers of those diagnosed with autism have increased.  Many feel that this is due to increased surveillance and inclusion of additional sympomology under the title of "autism". Precise causes of autism spectral disorders remain elusive, and there is no cure.  Unless you are Stephanie Seneff, described as a " Research scientist"  " of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a widely published author on topics ranging from Azlheimer’s Disease to autism and cardiovascular disease."     Why the silence from MIT?   Seneff not only knows the cause of autism, she knows the cure.  So why is this expert on autism and cardi

This is an except from the UF Senior Vice President's (my boss) newsletter.  Glad I work for a place that gets it.  My answers to the last questions are "yes-yes" and "That's what I'm trying to figure out . "

My lab is interested in fruit flavors, mostly strawberry.  Traditional breeding has made fruits and vegetables bigger, helped them ship better and last longer.  Those are the priorities of the modern food-to-market chain.   In the process, flavors have been relegated to a genetic afterthought.  Acceptable flavor is all that's required if a piece of fruit looks nice and is cheap to produce, and this is why fruits and veggies lack sensory attributes. Today my lab is using genomics approaches to aid marker-assisted breeding to reverse that trend.  My lab's efforts are just one little offshoot of research endeavors in the Plant Innovation Center at UF.  There are many faculty interested in how to improve sensory content of fruits and vegetables, so a book on the role of flavor and aroma is always of prime interest.  So when I received a copy of The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzker, I was excited to dig in.  The Dorito Effect uses the disappearance of flavor as a central hy

The discovery of transfer DNA (T-DNA) in sweet potato indicates horizontal transfer of genetic material from bacterium to plant.  The process is identical to that used in the generation of other transgenic plants, and transgenic plants bear the same bacterial DNA sequences used in the transfer process. The sweet potato is thuslly out of compliance with European Union standards, and must not be cultivated on organic farms. We must follow the Precautionary Principle- right?  Almost 50,000 angry petitioners stand up against sweet spuds!  For decades anti-GMO groups have warned us against adding genes and T-DNA to genomes.   What do the critics say about T-DNA insertions? ·          There are no long-term studies showing their effects or if products are safe. ·          There is no way to guess at unintended consequences. Like causing Morgellon’s Disease  and other infections . ·          Sweet potatoes and foods with them must be labeled in the EU, as they contain a

Since the beginning of plant genetic engineering, one of the central criticisms has been that we never can predict the long-term effects of T-DNA integration.  T-DNA stands for "transfer DNA", and it is the little run of genes and stuff that is integrated into the DNA of the new host organism.  It is the piece of DNA that activists claim will unleash unforeseen devastation, and is the basis of all that's evil and wrong with the world, leading to disease, destruction and lost socks. The recent sequencing of the sweet potato genome revealed that its collection of genetic material contains naturally-occurring T-DNA inserts.  Kyndt et al find that Mother "Monsanto" Nature has genetically engineered sweet potatoes, as they contain elements of horizontal gene transfer, making them naturally occurring GMOs. Kyndt et al. find T-DNA in sweet potatoes-- but Monsanto didn't put it there, Mother Nature did. Mother Nature is a Monsanto shill! I'm not sur

Did you ever read something and swear you have read it somewhere else before?  It happens to me now and then, particularly when something is so memorably awful that it burns a special place in my brain. Here is one such instance.  A 2015 paper published by Hilbeck et al, co-authored by luminaries including Shiva, Hansen, Heinemann, Antoniou and others, is substantially lifted word for word from a 2013 website.  Since its publication in January 2015, anti biotech activists have reminded us again and again, of the peer-reviewed journal that soundly declares no consensus on GMO crops. The paper, published in Environmental Sciences Europe , is a 'Discussion' paper, which means it is a non-peer reviewed opinion piece. As a scientist, reviewer and editor I have a lot of problems with such work.  I do appreciate clearly marked  Letters and Correspondence , and certainly welcome Opinions .  These can spark discussion and speculation, but are obviously distinguished as ide

I hear it almost every single day.  Because I talk or write about science, and promote ideas consistent with the scientific literature, I must be somehow receiving compensation to share such views.   After all, what kind of sick bastard would spend their personal time communicating facts to the public?  There must be something hidden! These are the brilliant speculations that fuel the #Science14 public records request , the endless accusations of being a Monsanto lackey , and the distrust in scientists in general.  If we are talking about cool scientific ideas, then there must be some secret money trail encouraging that discussion.  It is one of the most small-minded assertions I've ever heard, but coming from small minds it makes perfect sense.  There are a lot of people making big bucks by promoting bad ideas. They have been doing it for centuries.  Swindles are financially lucrative, because "there's a sucker born every minute" , and many modern-day charlatans