This is a very interesting development, for those who aren't aware of Henrietta Lacks there's a great episode of Radiolab about her where they inform her family about her legacy for the first time, and how her immortal cancer cells are still alive and being used today.
This is huge, and I'm thankful for having read it.
I'm a little confused as to how a sex-specific gene, especially one meant to spread through males, is not inherently self-propagating, though. Maybe I don't understand. They're not going to automatically snuff it once the population drops far enough. That's not how reproduction works and this is effective enough to risk a total population collapse.
It would be one of our most effective tools, but as always I think it's playing chicken with the ecosystem and I'm really putting my hopes behind tackling plasmodium itself, rather than seriously disrupting a popular point on the food chain. This is a way to put things on hold while we research something more permanent. I know attempts to interfere with sporozoite reproduction in mosquitos will probably never reach as far if there's no way to avoid the quicker die off in carriers, but I can dream.
Monsanto has in the past planted and ghostwrit articles alleging positive assertions about the cancer-causeing herbicide glyphosate.
While I can't prove it is happening in this case, it does seem serving the end of sewing skepticism, and it was published by a paper Bayer (maker of Roundup) buys ads in.
And also buys articles in.
you will thence gather I was saying no such thing.
I insinuated the author might be on the take.
I'll go ahead and state outright here The Washington Post absolutely is on the take.
Jeff Bezos (the paper's owner) is "the take", even if there hadn't been links in my post showing financial ties between the paper and the manufacturer.
It doesn't matter if the rangers are on the take or not, as they did not write the story. Neither did they propagate it.
Some people did write and publish this and they had a reason to.
I merely proffered some info one might consider as they ponder who those people are and what those reasons might be.
It's might be because RoundUp tastes like lemonade and Bezos really wants we should know.
It is absolutely to make The Washington Post profit.
It may well be to shape public opinion a certain way.
All things a reader of the article should attempt suss.
Also, try reading it.
I thank you for your concern but I assure you I did prior to commenting on it. Reading it, in fact, was how I was able to assert it, "serv[ed] the end of skewing skepticism" with such confidence.
Further, it's how I know it's odd a man who doesn't appear to be operating an industrial nor agricultural tree growing operation is singing the praises of residential-use RoundUp that won't even be obtainable legally in six months.
Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. And if you have issues with the science of conservation--and think you are more qualified than the park service folks who actually do this for a living, you can take it up with them.
I'm sorry you are so troubled with bogey men. It must make your life very difficult.
You are coming off quite adversarial. I question why that is.
Were I to guess, I'd say the article gives moral license to use a product you have unexamined doubts about and you are channeling the cognitive dissonance impugning its impartiality causes into combativeness.
If I were to guess. As I've no desire to get into this with someone I believe to be engaging in less-than-perfect faith, I won't presume to guess.
I am certain your propensity to post positively about Monsanto products is down to something as innocuous as a special interest.
The abrasive way you address others I will chalk to not sleeping well, or perhaps a personality quirk.
Regardless, I hope you have a fantastic rest of your day.
Look if you can't tell example from a statement of fact that is that and if you only want to preach with your choir thats fine. But again I am fine with gmo if I know what was done. It has nothing to do with what is currently being done with gmo or not but what can be done. Since what can be done is so broad anyone would be foolish to make decisions just on the overall classification. Electrolytes may be great but its not because its what plants crave.
problem with gmo is it is all kinds of things. Vitamin A in rice. alright. have plants be more resistant to poisons sprayed on them without dying. uuuummmmm. I would like labeling laws around gmo so people know what they are getting specifically. with qr codes everything about a foods origin and history should be available.
Ummmmm: false. That claim about poison is bullshit.
And we do have label laws now. To be fair, they don't describe all the benefits like higher yields, reduced pesticide, and decrease land use. But you can blame anti-science activists (the same ones who lied to you about Vitamin A) for the useless labels. What do you expect from anti-science cranks? Don't let them set policy.
Im not claiming that im giving examples. I have not seen the labeling that I describe. I can't use my phone to find out where a tomato was grown and if it had any gene modification and exactly what type it is and such. I would like that on the qr code on the package. for it and everything else. I want to know where the meat was slaughter and its diet and where it was grazed if it was grazed. let consumers make their decisions just give the details.
Yah, I realize that you have no idea how the labels work. And you want something that is very costly and other people shouldn't have to pay for. Go to your farmer's market and make them talk to you for hours.
I talked with a farmer once who raised his farmer's market prices just because he had to spend so much time talking with people who wanted to describe their bodily functions at length. I mean, that's fine if you want to pay for that. But leave the poor out of it.
You have it backwards. Anti-science cranks got the GMO label instituted, and it was estimated to cost ridiculous amounts of money for exactly zero value:
Look im not taking advice from you or any other crank. I have no problem with gmo food if im given information on what it is. Im fine as you say going to the farmers market. Its good for you and others anyway right. Cheaper stuff for you while I overpay.
To be honest that is way fewer than I expected. If 50% of Americans are able to switch to primarily lab grown meat in the next 20 years, it'd be huge for our impact on the planet
At least for me, the 'issue' has never really been whether they are safe for consumption. Genes make RNA make Proteins, as long as we are careful about which proteins we are adding, there shouldn't be a safety issue.
My cause for concern has been the introduction of these genes into the wild population. For wind-pollinated grasses (e.g. wheat and maize), there isn't a way to control the spread of this genetic information outside the fields used for agriculture.
Since many plants can crossbreed, we are effectively altering the wild population unintentionally.
Now, weighing that against the benefits of using GMOs - it still probably comes out better to not have hundreds of millions starve, but it is something that needs to be addressed.
I would think the problem would be more of an issue with any crop plant's genes, not the one or two added genes that might not even convey any benefit and last in the population.
I mean, if you are worried about contaminating Mexican corn, the larger problem is the other corn genes that would impact a crop.
And if that's the case, it would be a problem across all of agriculture. But that has been managed for centuries.
The invention consists of a liquid suspension of short fibers and a solvent that, when in contact with air, solidifies into a non-woven material. The liquid mix can be sprayed out of an aerosol can or robotic spray gun straight onto the wearer or on 3D molds to create fabric-like materials that can be peeled off to take any shape.
LOL. Well, you can add the fiber of your choice, apparently.
The fibers can be biopolymers made from natural or synthetic materials, including corn starch, keratin from wool and mohair, cellulose, hemp or collagen.
Biotechnology news and advances
Hot