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
Showing posts with label biases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biases. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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.
and here:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/ESHx4FnZadAJZqvIsGRg/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013
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.58.032806.103840and here:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/ESHx4FnZadAJZqvIsGRg/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)