Francis and Timmy

Story of mine published in online magazine Verbicide, go here to read:

 http://www.verbicidemagazine.com/2013/11/26/francis-and-timmy-doug-downie-fiction

On an article on GMOs

In response to an article in the Sacramento News & Review, first published in the Village Voice. Perhaps demonstrating their utter lack of commitment to balance they did not publish this piece, or a short letter to the editor I wrote previously. They did print 2 sappy praise letters for the execrable piece that 'inspired' me to write this:

 

I have problems with corporate capitalism. I see the practices that corporations engage in as being, more often than not, exploitative of workers, duping and deceitful to consumers, duplicitous and evasive to regulators, and corrupting to politicians. It’s the nature of the game, and it sucks. We should throw spanners into the works when we can. This is why it’s hard to read some of the stuff that gets published on a subject such as GMOs, where rational thought and science are left in the dust of fear-mongering and paranoid fantasies. I find myself in such opposition to this stuff that I end up nearly coming down on the side of one of those corporate beasts. This was especially true of the article by Chris Parker in the 8/1/13 issue of SN&R (first published in 7/25/13 issue of The Village Voice).

            Mr. Parker doesn’t wait a minute to start with the appeal to fear, and the fallacy of misleading vividness when he cites Monsanto’s ‘random killing’, ‘take control of the world’s food supply’, ‘Franken-crops’. Such wording elicits shock even though they have little relationship to reality. The article is filled with ostentatious waving of oversized red flags around in this manner, with little corroboration or backing offered for some rather outlandish statements.

            For example, Parker has ‘agents’ of Monsanto lurking in the bushes and the coffee shops, secretly videotaping, infiltrating, intelligence gathering, pretending to be surveyors, bullying farmers…this poor guy has been watching too many movies. When statements like these are made a journalist really needs to inform his readers of where the information has originated, and it better be from multiple reliable sources. Parker does no such thing; it’s all pulled out of his hat! I have dealings with farmers and grower organizations in my work – none of them have mentioned anything like this. None of them are ‘terrified’. Later Parker attributes the question ‘Trust Us. Why Would We Lie?’ to Monsanto. In fact, he is asking the very same question to his readers about himself. He gives us little reason to trust him.

            A few studies are cited in the time-honored tradition of cherry-picking – a disconcertingly common form of argument among anti-GMO folks. What one typically does is not just cite the reference that supports your a priori belief, but also cite others that produce different results…like what happens in the real world of science, and good journalism; but not in this fictional one. Of course, one would have to actually read those other works, and think about them, and weigh the evidence…not the strong suit of someone like Mr. Parker. The weight of evidence is important in science. A 2009 study by Gurian-Sherman that failed to support the claim that GM crops produce higher yields is discussed, but no inkling is given that studies have been mixed on this issue. Besides the fact that GM crops currently in commercial use are not generally engineered for greater yield directly, many studies have found that they do have greater yield than conventional crops (A 2-part review in Annual Review of Plant Biology (2008 & 2009) by Peggy Lemaux, of UC, Berkeley, provides an excellent review and entry into the scientific literature in general.).

            Another argument put forth by Parker (and others) is that the FDA ‘approves GM crops by doing no testing of its own; it simply takes Monsanto's word for their safety.’ It is not the purview of the FDA to approve GM crops. They approve foods. As such, they are downstream in the regulatory process from Monsanto and its immediate products. It is the EPA and USDA that approve GM crops (or the transgenes and their products in the case of the EPA); all 3 agencies play a role however. While they do no testing of an applicant’s products on their own they do not ‘take Monsanto’s word for it’. They require specific studies with the cost of the research to be borne by the applicant (not the taxpayers), and they subject the data, results, and interpretations of the applicant to scrutiny by expert scientists. If the methods or data are found wanting, more data is required. (This all comes at a cost of from $6-15 million (Nature Biotechnology 25:509–11), a major reason why public institutions don’t play a greater role.) Some of this ends up in the peer-reviewed literature and so goes through another layer of scrutiny. Not ideal, but a far cry from ‘taking their word for it.’ One can make a reasonable case for the insufficiency of testing of GM crops, and foods derived from them, but what we have here is something else. Lying is not the best tactic for a ‘journalist’.

            Parker states ‘Monsanto understood early on that the best way to stave off bad publicity was to limit research.’ A simple search on Genamics (correct spelling) Journal Seek (http://journalseek.net/) found 227 journals publishing on genetic engineering. How has research been ‘staved off’? Citing a filmmaker as source, Parker claims that ‘95 percent of genetic-engineering research is paid for and controlled by corporations like Monsanto.’ You mean all those people who I’ve heard speak at conferences, whose papers I’ve read, who worked in universities, and who were funded by the NIH and the NSF and the USDA were only the 5%? I really want a better source of data than a filmmaker here (who has been doing some cherry picking of his own). I don’t have much time but I looked in the acknowledgements in the first 10 papers from 2013 I found that involved genetic engineering and only 1 group received funding from Monsanto. That’s 10% (of a very small sample, true). And no, the scientists are not all keeping it a big secret. Certainly Monsanto (and Syngenta et al.) does extensive in-house research that is not shared, and more of the pie should go to public institutions, but 95% is a stretch. In fact, while 80% of the commercialization of GM crops has come from corporations, a substantial amount of the research innovation comes from public institutions (Lemaux, 2009, cited above).

            Finally, on GM crops and resistance to pesticides and pesticide use: weeds and insects become resistant to any strategy to kill them. Always have, always will. Resistance to Bt crops has actually been much longer in coming (few examples after 15 years) than to conventional insecticides (usually after about 1-3 years). Parker cites pesticide use data from a 2012 paper by Charles Benbrook (though he doesn’t say so, perhaps fearful that readers would see how few sources he uses). He doesn’t mention another 2012 paper by Brookes and Barfoot that contradicts Benbrook’s results. I found Benbrook’s analysis fairly persuasive but Parker doesn’t tell the whole story. Insecticide use in Bt crops has decreased by 123 million pounds over the same period, indicating an ecological benefit of these crops. The overall increase is from herbicide use (not surprising when you have crops specifically engineered to tolerate them to allow easier spraying–a misguided innovation, its true). Note as well, that while many weeds have evolved resistance to Round-Up in the presence of Round-Up Ready crops; just as many have in conventional crops. Round-Up gets used too much! Period! (Actually the active ingredient, glyphosate, which is now used in dozens and dozens of products not owned by Monsanto.) The nub is that if they dropped using Round-Up farmers would move to other, more toxic herbicides.

            I wish I could go on. This article was riddled with fallacious argument, distorted information, and withheld information. It deserves a more thorough critique. Time and space prevent me.

There are real concerns and risks in genetic engineering. There are also benefits. Rational and honest discussion is needed.

To end, I am no friend of Monsanto. In fact, I think that corporate capitalism in the broader sense is the real problem; and Monsanto has lots of company in that department.

Read the story here:
 www.villagevoice.com/2013-07-24/restaurants/the-monsanto-menace

Links to the articles by Peggy Lemaux are given in a previous post from 1/3/2013, 'GMOs'.

 

 Doug Downie holds a PhD in Entomology from UC, Davis. He has 20 years experience in research and teaching of entomology, ecology, evolution and genetics. He has never received any funding from the private sector.

Funny

Humor is without doubt a redeeming breath of fresh air into life. But it's clear that different people have different perceptions of what is funny. The variation comes from background, history, gender, age, etc. Really funny people cut across these lines of difference though, I think. Really funny people are really talented and brilliant and important people. Here's a list of some supposedly funny entertainments that I think are...and some that aren't:

FUNNY
Gabriel Iglesias
Jon Stewart
Stephen Colbert
Christopher Titus
Richard Belzer
Big Bang Theory
Bill Murray
Charles Bukowski
Seinfeld
Curb Your Ethusiasm
Cheers
Jonathan Winters
Richard Pryor
Monty Python
Key & Peele
Lenny Bruce
Woody Allen
George Carlin
Louis CK

NOT FUNNY
30 Rock
Tosh
How I Met Your Mother
Rules Of Engagement
Jay Leno
David Letterman
Conan O'Brien
Saturday Night Live
Don Rickles
Phyllis Diller
Russell Brand
Howard Stern
Ricky Gervais
Jeff Foxworthy
Larry the Cable Guy
Animal House
Adam Sandler
Jack Black
Seth Myers

Honeybees and cellphones II

Well it's a wonder the interest that my post about cellphone effects on honeybees generated. I find it a mystery and continue to scratch my head. The sample size is still extremely small, but it makes me wonder about what's going on out there.
I confess, I started this blog in hopes of getting some buyers for my books - that was rather foolish - not as a science blog. But as a scientist I can't help but comment occasionally on things scientific and pseudoscientific. The pseudoscientific prickles me more, no doubt.
Anyway, I encountered another study claiming to show the negative effects of cellphone usage on honeybee fitness. Unlike the previous study, this one has not appeared in countless blog posts, for reasons not immediately apparent.
Also unlike the previous study, this one actually DID show negative effects on hive function and reproduction.
Unfortunately, it really doesn't mean very much.
Firstly, in scientific experiments we like to have replication - repeated executions of the same experiment at the same time under the same conditions - to account for random deviations from a result reflecting a real phenomenon - this one only had 2.
Piss-poor.
We like to have statistical tests of significance as well - does it really mean anything, or is it just chance? - something that's hard to do with N = 2 replications. This was not done, of course.
But other than that there wasn't anything too horrible about the science in this study...except that it is IRRELEVANT!
Cellphones are not found inside honeybee hives! However well designed a study might be, if it replicates nothing resembling reality it is not likely to be of much use.
It doesn't help that that the researchers appear to have already reached a conclusion prior to collecting any data by repeatedly referring to 'electrosmog' in their introduction.

As before, read it yourself:

media.withtank.com/a49823b5aa.pdf

honeybees and cell phones

Another example of the distortion of science has recently come to my attention. It's odd how these minor studies are grasped upon by that subset of society that seeks to gain credibility and find supposed authoritative support for their preconceived biases. A very weak and insignificant piece of research is suddenly touted as:

It's Official - Cell Phones are Killing Bees!

Lo and behold, something has actually been published in the scientific literature that SEEMS to support our somewhat wacky fears of modern technology!
In this case it's a study by Favre in Switzerland that showed that if you put active cell phones in honeybee hives they will react.
What a surprise.
Did any bees die?
No.
Did any bees abscond?
No.
Were any ill effects upon the bees observed?
No.
They merely 'piped', meaning they were agitated by the obvious intrusion.
Honeybees don't use cell phones, and bee keepers are not in the habit of rigging their hives with cell phones. This study has been actively promoted as demonstrating that cell phone radiation is the cause of colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that has worried and baffled beekeepers and researchers for the past decade or so. There are many possible causes of this problem but this study in NO WAY says anything about it.
All it says is that if you put cell phones in honeybee hives they will react.
NOTHING ELSE.
That is as far as you can go with these data.
Of course, knowing the limitations of one's data is a hallmark of a good scientist, and Favre himself didn't go too far overboard (maybe a bit too far).
It's a damn shame that people who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground have highly visible venues where their ignorance can be perpetuated and reverberated across the public consciousness.

Read it yourself:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13592-011-0016-x

To Steve Earle

Steve,
Been reading your book of short stories, Doghouse Roses. I like it. I like the grit and focus on the common people. I like that your main character is often a guitar player. I like the drinking and traveling and bad relationships, the hitchhiking and hard work. I like the view from the wrong side of the law. I like the down to earth expression.
But Steve...there's something that really disappoints me.
The thing is, is that you don't have the guts to write in first person, or at least the real kind of first person. I can't tell you how disappointing that is, but I can tell you that your writing would be much better if you did have those kind of guts, the kind of guts to do that. To really lay it down from the heart, rather than just appearing to do so.
There are a number of writers out there who have had such courage. You may know of some of them, and then again you may not. Townes may have done it in song, and Guy Clark certainly has, but here we're talking about prose.
It takes courage, and only a few have had it.
Too bad you're not one of them. It would have been nicer if you were.

GMO's

I have been trying very hard to hate genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). There is such a groundswell of rabid opinion against this technology that I have felt the need to overcome, or ignore, my inclinations as a geneticist and try to find reason and logic in a stance that objects to these new versions of what has been a very long line of different forms of manipulating the genomes of organisms that have proven useful to us. (If you think for a minute that there is anything natural about cows or pigs or corn or tomatoes or dogs, then I have some lakefront property in the Sahara you might be interested in.)
            I’ve been having a hard time of it. When I read some of the more apparently informed statements (generally they really are statements more than arguments) of the anti-GMO crowd I am, for a moment at least, swayed. Could it be? Could all these near apocalyptic outcomes actually come to pass? Have we all been fooled, hoodwinked by corporate conspiracy? Could these perceived hazards actually be things we should be deeply worried about? Have I missed something?
            I’ve pretty much failed in the attempt, though I’m not done trying. I will keep listening to what is being said, and read what is being written. I’m fascinated. I have no doubt that there are risks, and perhaps I’ve become more cognizant of them, but there is nothing unique to GMO’s in this regard. Risk exists in all human endeavor. We shouldn’t take too many but we shouldn’t be afraid to take some.
            But I can’t escape the feeling that the anti-GMO perspective is mostly driven by emotion and an underlying objection to the ethics of cross-taxon genetic manipulation (as opposed to traditional breeding = ‘old school’ genetic manipulation) more than by any real risks to human health or the environment.
            There are three basic areas of concern with GMO’s:

            1) human health risks
            2) ecological/environmental risks
            3) corporate practices/social risks

            There is a classic example of cherry-picking of data in the way that research showing negative effects of GMO’s are trotted out as soon as they become known among the cognoscenti – rather than dipping in an unbiased fashion into the large pool of relevant research the lottery tickets are scanned for conformance to prior belief and grasped at with fervid glee when found – they are waved to the sky to show the proof! This is especially true with regard to human health risks. For example, it’s very difficult to see how toxins (various Bt toxins) that don’t even harm the vast majority of insects can possibly pose a threat to humans (through your cotton shorts I guess). The preponderance of evidence in the published literature supports what my knowledge as a geneticist and entomologist and biologist tells me. However, on the basis of minimal evidence for allergenicity, Bt crops have been castigated.
            Science leans toward accepting – for the moment at least – those things that the preponderance of data support. In no field of science do all studies agree 100%. That’s clearly true for almost any other field you care to name as well. The preponderance of studies on GMO’s support the view that they pose little threat to human health.
            To say otherwise is to incite hysteria, for motives that are not clear.
 
            The story is a little different for possible ecological/environmental impacts of GMO’s. There are real risks to be worried about here, though they do not appear to be anything approaching the ecological disaster category that many opponents invoke.
            Some crops and their wild relatives really can hybridize and therefore transgenes can pass into wild species. The likelihood of doing so depends on whether any of those relatives are anywhere nearby, and a host of other ecological factors. On almost any scale that likelihood is low but it’s definitely not nil. It can happen, and it has.
            Likewise, non-target species really can be impacted by feeding on insect resistant plants - as one example - whether they’ve been genetically engineered or produced by traditional breeding.
            Does it matter?
            It might. It all depends. I don’t have time to get into the different ecological and evolutionary conditions that would have to exist for it to make a difference. Suffice to say; the probabilities are quite low and in any case gene flow of transgenes to wild relatives will not produce an ecological catastrophe. Humans have already done that on a massive scale by habitat fragmentation, pollution and globalization. Nothing resulting from gene flow of transgenes could be worse, or less manageable.

            I am a borderline socialist/communist and I hate corporate practices, and indeed, I hate the whole corporate restructuring of modern society. It sucks, and it demeans the worth of the majority of people who must operate under its influence, whether they be employees or consumers. The dictatorship of the corporation is little better than the dictatorship/totalitarianism of worn-out communism, and is far more imperialistic. But railing against Monsanto’s practices with respect to GMO’s is not a proper objection to GMO’s; it is rather an objection to corporate practices that could as easily be directed toward cell phone companies, fast food chains, Walmart, Exxon or any number of other large corporations. The practices that the large biotech companies use are not different from those of other large companies that force-feed their mostly useless commodities down the throats of consumers. It’s a commonality of run-away capitalism. It would be useful to understand what it is that one is actually objecting to - and to make that clear.
            While a handful of international conglomerates have dominated commercialization of GMO’s, it is the truth that a large proportion of the research in genetically engineering organisms is done in public institutions with public funding, with an honest interest in improving conditions for human society.
            To say otherwise is simply ignorant, or worse.

For those willing to be open minded, and to try moderately technical writing, I suggest you read these for a pretty thorough overview:

Lemaux PG. 2008. “Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist’s Analysis of the Issues (Part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology 59: 771-812.

Lemaux PG. 2009. “Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist’s Analysis of the Issues (Part II). Annual Review of Plant Biology 60: 511–59.

They can be downloaded for free here:

http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840
and here:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/ESHx4FnZadAJZqvIsGRg/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013