Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear and investigates what's up with America's bees.
Guy Montag|4.13.07 @ 7:32AM|#
Oh come on!
The good bees are fleeing the invasion of the killer bees well in
advance of their advance. Just like other critters leaving before a
disaster.
It is as plain as the nose on your face!
|4.13.07 @ 8:23AM|#
Great article. I must admit, I am skeptical about biotech crops.
My son has the peanut allergy, and the conspiracy side of me often
thinks that peanuts have been genetically altered such that the
protein now negatively affects a certain percentage of the
population more than they normally would. I understand I have no
evidence to support that, however it is easier for me to think that
rather than thinking somehow my genes are to blame.
Like I said, good article. Articles like that keep people like me
from going off the deep end.
|4.13.07 @ 8:25AM|#
good article. I wouldnt put it past Sierra club to bend the truth to their agenda. But it doesnt strike me as oulandish that GMO crops could have some kind of effect like this.
|4.13.07 @ 8:37AM|#
Matt,
What should strike as outlandish is the fact that GM crops would
have this effect, and it wouldn't be detected by
the various studies that have been done.
In any case, I think Ron and I can agree on the solution:
genetically modified superbees, with nanochips implanted in their
thoraces.
|4.13.07 @ 9:00AM|#
The good bees are fleeing the invasion of the killer bees
well in advance of their advance.
They're cutting and running. What do you expect from European
honeybees? ;-)
|4.13.07 @ 9:04AM|#
I don't mean to make light of this...it is actually one of the
more disturbing news stories I've seen during the past week. Bees
are obviously very, very important to agriculture and there's no
obvious replacement for them, as hummingbirds and fruit bats are
much more high-maintenance.
I wonder if the same problem occurred in the southern hemisphere
during their spring in October?
|4.13.07 @ 9:12AM|#
Nice articles.
Personally, rather than render GM crops blameless just yet, I'd
rather see them investigated along with all other possiblilities.
Unfortunately, chicken littles have already begun their well-funded
propaganda machine.
Sandy|4.13.07 @ 9:19AM|#
Maybe someone should point out that European honeybees
are not native to this continent? So basically an imported bee is
not doing well. That's a concern of agricultural specialists (honey
production) but not of environmentalists.
Wake me when we show declines in carpenter or bumblebee
populations. Then maybe I'll get concerned.
|4.13.07 @ 9:20AM|#
MOPAR crops can out run GM crops any day.
Are you trying to generate buzz for the New Chrysler?
|4.13.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Sandy,
The problem is, they've done well for, oh, 300 years or so, and
it's just now that they're getting walloped...and of course they're
dying off in Europe, where they are native, as well.
|4.13.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Parasites from Java?
I thought we didn't have to worry about non-native species
anymore.
Zebra mussels give the great lakes a fresh, lemony scent!
|4.13.07 @ 9:30AM|#
That study includes the Cornell University researcher, John
Losey, who infamously poisoned monarch butterflies in the lab by
force-feeding them B.t. corn pollen that was heavily sprinkled on
milkweed leaves.
Mmmm...butterfly foie gras is the shizzle.
|4.13.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Isn't dosing subjects with levels much higher than they would realistically encounter pretty much standard practice for determining toxicity?
|4.13.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Parasites from Java
That's gonna be my new nickname for those motherfuckers who smoke
Djarums.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Personally, rather than render GM crops blameless just yet,
I'd rather see them investigated along with all other
possiblilities.
Well, now Mr. Bailey is the scientist here. Since he has disclosed
some of the ways that he does not have a financial interest in GM,
I think the burden of proof is on us to show that GM did it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinar . . . ah, eff it -- my
sarcasm even grates on me sometimes.
Sav|4.13.07 @ 9:59AM|#
So long and thanks for all the pollen.
Look out for the Vogon constructor fleet.
|4.13.07 @ 10:00AM|#
Yes, joe, it is.
But Greenpeace was not claiming that B.t. corn pollen was toxic at
some level, they were claiming it was toxic at
any level.
|4.13.07 @ 10:04AM|#
That's fine, Isaac.
I'm just wondering why the biologist who did the study gets
slandered as "imfamous" for his commonplace research.
|4.13.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Obviously the genetic engineers have to get to work on building a healthier bee.
|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#
"Isn't dosing subjects with levels much higher than they would
realistically encounter pretty much standard practice for
determining toxicity?"
Yes and its an unjustified stupid practice. The assumption is
linear dose response. This assumption is not reasonable since it is
expected that the body should be able to deal with small amounts of
toxins without a problem.
|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#
joe: Sigh. Dosing lepidopteran caterpillars with high doses of B.t. toxin proves nothing additional since after all B.t. toxin is supposed to kill exactly such creatures. Organic farmers had known this for decades. Also keep in mind that Monarch caterpillars are obligate milkweed eaters, they do not eat corn, soybeans, or any other biotech crop. Please also keep in mind that milkweed grows everywhere, not just in corn fields. So Losey chose to poison Monarchs because they are charismatic lepidopteran species, (not like some nasty old moth larva) and are "state insects" for many states. So Losey chose to poison them in the lab at completely unrealistic doses with malice aforethought aiming for publicity and more grants. But go ahead and give Losey the benefit of your doubt.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.13.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Awesome disclosure Ron.
Dammit, I love honey and now prices are going to skyrocket.
|4.13.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Wow, Ron, you really want to start bringing "benefit of the
doubt" and "publicity and more grants" into the discussion?
You?
Guess what, people - we need to start ignoring scientific evidence
reported by people with a political agenda. Ron Bailey said so.
|4.13.07 @ 10:34AM|#
No problem with competing ideas.
It's sanctimonious pricks that are the problem.
Chucklehead|4.13.07 @ 10:35AM|#
joe -
Rigging scientific evidence to support your personal political
agenda does deserve to be ignored at the least. Mocked, then
ignored is better.
VM|4.13.07 @ 10:36AM|#
"Zebra mussels give the great lakes a fresh, lemony
scent!"
ha! awesome!
(but if high# happens on by here - the lake doesn't look at all
beautiful today)
"How sad it must be, to be unable to tolerate competing
ideas."
That's only because Mr Imus was joking. jeez. DEMAND KURV!!!!
(ducks)
|4.13.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Chucklehead,
But the only "rigging" was the use of the standard practice for
determining toxicity.
|4.13.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear...
His curiousity got the better of him and he decided to order that
sexy tank top from the International Male catalog.
|4.13.07 @ 10:40AM|#
All: Could the rest of you just ignore the back-and-forth that joe and I sometimes engage in and get back to talking about the Sierra Club and what's happening to bees. I would appreciate it. Thanks
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#
I long for the day the guard changes and joe gets moved above the fold. joe may be a statist, but he is also a good critic. He has the "free minds" part down better than most, and that is important.
um. no. not me. was someone |4.13.07 @ 10:45AM|#
but... but... Ron. How else can I one get worked up
for BATIN?
(only for storage in the stewardship of Big Pollen, of course. It's
for science.)
[runs off]
|4.13.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Ronald Bailey drapes himself in mesh gear
My first thought when reading that was this photo:
http://reason.com/news/show/118459.html
|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#
"His curiousity got the better of him and he decided to order
that sexy tank top from the International Male catalog."
And he did so in the service of Big Pollen.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#
From Wikiepedia on the Irish Potato Famine:
The Famine was partly due to "the (potato) Blight" (also known
as phytophthora)- the oomycete that almost instantly destroyed the
primary food source for many Irish.
It doesn't take genetically modified organisms to cause a single
species to collapse instantaneously.
Domesticated bees do not maintain the same level of genetic
diversity that wild bees do. As serious a problem as the current
collapse is, it is not that surprising that a minor change in some
environmental condition could cause widespread problems for the
bees. Hysteria fed by fear and anxiety over GM plants is not going
to be productive in identifying the root cause of the collapse of
the domesticated bees.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Domesticated bees do not maintain the same level of genetic
diversity that wild bees do. As serious a problem as the current
collapse is, it is not that surprising that a minor change in some
environmental condition could cause widespread problems for the
bees. Hysteria fed by fear and anxiety over GM plants is not going
to be productive in identifying the root cause of the collapse of
the domesticated bees.
Careful, carrick. There are those who fret that more heavily gm'ed
species are more susceptible to species collapse.
In other words, traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees more
susceptible to species collapse leads one to believe that gm'ed
bees would be even more susceptible to species collapse than
traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees.
Is that a thought you really want us, your readers, thinking?
Grotius|4.13.07 @ 11:09AM|#
joe,
I will to note that organic farmers use B.T. on their crops; they
manually put it on crops. Indeed, such crops grown using B.T. are
certified as organic as I recall.
|4.13.07 @ 11:10AM|#
carrick,
If Monsanto succeeds in getting millions of African farmers to
replace the thousands of localized strains of, say, casava with the
one Monstanto-provided strain (GM or no), would that make a species
collapse more or less likely?
Personally, I don't think GMOs per se are a real threat, so much as
the loss of biodiversity among crops.
Grotius|4.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#
BTW, does anyone here (besides Bailey and I) know what Bt
is?
Well, its bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occuring
bacteria.
Jeff|4.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Yeah this is totally bogus - many of the crops that bees are
pollinating for migratory pollination (say FL to ME for example)
are well established citrus crops and blueberry fields. Many of
these are old growth (i.e. non-GMO) and have been getting contracts
for bee pollination for years. In these cases, including many in
California almond groves, honeybee colonies have been dying out
because of CCD when there are no GMO crops present within 2 miles
(a honeybee's maximum foraging radius)
So GMOs are not even involved in many, many cases of CCD. Of worthy
note, many GMO "enhanced" crops aren't even pollinated by
honeybees. Corn for example is highly modified by Monsanto and
others, but corn is typically wind pollinated. Sure bees will eat
its pollen, but only if there are no other better sources. And
farmers don't require bees for pollination of corn and other crops
(soy, wheat, etc.)
|4.13.07 @ 11:17AM|#
For example, the first study from the "highly respected
scientists" the Sierra Club cites actually *contradicts* the notion
that biotech crops hurt bees.
Environmentalists, getting the science wrong for their own agendas?
Gee, what are the odds?
|4.13.07 @ 11:19AM|#
How sad it must be, to be unable to tolerate competing
ideas.
Competing ideas I can take... it is pure knuckleheadedness anybody
can detest, *Joe*.
|4.13.07 @ 11:43AM|#
I am going to have to second that we need Franken-bees to pollinate our Franken-crops. Delicious. I can't wait to try the Franken-honey!
|4.13.07 @ 12:08PM|#
joe, normally if someone's work is misrepresented by another
person or group he publicly distances himself from that
misrepresentation. Like the hurricane researchers did when people
started claiming that the 04-05 storms were due to global
warming.
This researcher appears to have been quite happy to have his study
used by Greenpeace to convey the impression that Bt in GM corn
pollen existed in large enough quantities in nature to harm Monarch
butterflies. Note that he didn't study its affects on
cockroaches.
After all, people who get mailers from Greenpeace won't write
checks if they think cockroaches are going to die.
|4.13.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Do cockroaches pollinate corn?
Do monarch butterflies pollinate corn?
Is Monsanto pushing a new straing of genetically modified floor
crumb?
I don't know anything about this guy, one way or the other, except
that 1) he used the standard toxicity test that every other
scientist researching toxicity uses, 2) he tested the toxicity of
the material in a crop on the species that pollinates that crop,
and 3) someone with a political agenda is trying to spin points 1
and 2 into a conspiracy.
|4.13.07 @ 12:36PM|#
A couple of posters on the thread the other day suggested that
the bees were prone to infection and parasites because the bees
themselves lacked genetic diversity.
Any evidence on this?
Chucklehead|4.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#
... 2) he tested the toxicity of the material in a crop on
the species that pollinates that crop,...
Maybe you should actually read his study before claiming this.
|4.13.07 @ 12:42PM|#
In other words, traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees
more susceptible to species collapse leads one to believe that
gm'ed bees would be even more susceptible to species collapse than
traditionally purposefully-cross-bred bees.
Traditional selective cross breeding of a limited number of
specimens to accentuate specific "good" features has the down-side
of limiting genetic diversity. GM-ing critters will have no
appreciable effect one way or the other so-long as selelective
cross-breeding continues. Cloning, on the other hand, dramatically
limits genetic diversity.
If Monsanto succeeds in getting millions of African farmers to
replace the thousands of localized strains of, say, casava with the
one Monstanto-provided strain (GM or no), would that make a species
collapse more or less likely?
Double-edged sword right. New and improved crops dramatically
increase production to eliminate famine. Loss of diversity
increases risk of total species collapse.
What should we do? Today, small numbers of "boutique" farmers do
great work in keeping diversity available. I'm not sure that is
enough by itself.
|4.13.07 @ 12:46PM|#
If it is global warming, perhaps the bees have moved to Canada. Yeah that's it: Blame Canada!
lunchgiver|4.13.07 @ 12:47PM|#
"oilseed grape (canola)"
Hmm, PC euphemization run rampant or spell-checker syndrome - you
be the judge. It's 'oilseed rape' not 'grape'. No relation to the
violent crime, it's just a very unfortunately named plant called
'rape'.
Sorry, not adding to the discussion, just pointing out something
mildly amusing.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 12:53PM|#
GM-ing critters will have no appreciable effect one way or
the other so-long as selelective cross-breeding
continues.
Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their
genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This
increases the probability that some latent susceptibility to a
microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will
emerge.
Yes, it would be the selective cross breeding and/or cloning that
would cause such an emergent susceptibility to be widespread, but
it is the GM'ing that increases the possibility that the
susceptibility will emerge in the first place.
GM / selective breeding / cloning are not independent issues in
this important sense.
|4.13.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Good article, Ron. Whatever is causing the bee die-off (high
infestations of viruses and fungi-- something like bee AIDS?) it's
interesting to see the case being used to whip up hysteria against
other, unlikely causes.
In point: the other day I read a totally serious letter to the
editor in one of the local newspapers in which the author claimed
this was because bees are being fed high fructose corn syrup.
Really.
Jennifer|4.13.07 @ 1:22PM|#
bees are being fed high fructose corn syrup.
Really.
There's no problem HFCS can't cause. Really.
|4.13.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of
their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This
increases the probability that some latent susceptibility to a
microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will
emerge.
Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of their
genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This
increases the probability that some latent
immunity to a microbe, or a prion, or a toxin, or
an allergen, or whatever will emerge.
Basic risk management means you have worry about the "unknown"
unknowns as well as the "known" unknowns. It also means weighing
the probability of opporunities (both known and unknown) against
the probability of risk (both known and unknown). GM-ing critters
will both improve their odds of surving some future threat as well
decreasing ther odds of surviving some other future
threat.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Sure it will. It will mean that a greater proportion of
their genetic material does not match what is found in nature. This
increases the probability that some latent immunity to a microbe,
or a prion, or a toxin, or an allergen, or whatever will
emerge.
No, there would be a bias toward latent susceptibilities. The
reason is that "natural" DNA has been exposed to these pre-existing
prions, toxins, microbes, etc. for a long period of time. The
immunities are built into the code by evolutionary process.
This is true to some extent with purposefully-cross-bred species.
When HnR brags that man has been purposefully
cross-breeding wheat for a long time, one implication is that it
has given any latent susceptibilities a long time to emerge and be
wiped out.
However, when relatively large portions of the DNA look different,
and become prevalent, within a few generations, then that is a
recipe for species failure.
I am not saying that GM species don't have helpful immunities. They
have those by design. What they don't necessarily have is immunity
against unforeseen defects that extant species have without us
appreciating them.
|4.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Ron,
Fifth paragraph, first sentence, it should be:
"oilseed rape(canola)" not "oilseed grape".
That is all.
|4.13.07 @ 1:46PM|#
No, there would be a bias toward latent
susceptibilities.
Can you provide references? I would like to follow up on that
point. I can't see how a gene sequence from one species inserted
into another has some intrinsic risk that it will alter the new
organisms level of susceptibility to microbes.
Paul|4.13.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Maybe someone should point out that European honeybees are
not native to this continent?
Sandy, this is true and known for those of us who are bee
followers. :O
But European honeybees are also in decline. So whatever's happening
is a worldwide phenomenon. Uhm, if there's one thing I can usually
predict, it's a reaction from the Big Environmentalism, but I have
to admit, I fell flat on this one. Has any link to global warming
[climate change] been made?
biologist|4.13.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Dave W., your scenario seems very unlikely to me. Possible, but unlikely, and probably easy to overcome with the same technology if it does occur.
|4.13.07 @ 1:59PM|#
The reason is that "natural" DNA has been exposed to these
pre-existing prions, toxins, microbes, etc. for a long period of
time.
The problem is that the microbes and prions themselves are
continually changing. GM crops are in no more danger from new
strains than traditionally bred crops, or wild plants for that
matter.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:08PM|#
I can't see how a gene sequence from one species inserted
into another has some intrinsic risk that it will alter the new
organisms level of susceptibility to microbes.
Among other reasons, because the inserted sequence breaks the
sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point. If it was the
sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point that provided
immunity against deadly bacterium X, then the frankenbees will
sweep the planet until one encounters bacterium X. This bee is
called Patient Zero. He spreads bacterium X through the bee
population and then all the bees die, suddenly.
then the tort lawyers come out and say, "who pays?"
Then the carricks and the ray ray's come out and say, "I guess the
people unlucky enough to rely on ecosystems that rely on bees.
Nobody could have foreseen this tragedy of the commons. It is force
majeure."
Then Dave W. sighs, heavily.
Then Ron Bailey thanks a God he doesn't believe in that losses in
his corporate investments are limited to the value of his
stocks.
Then biologist gets to determine how easy it is for bees to bounce
back from something like this. He is hopeful, and it seems like
honest work.
biologist|4.13.07 @ 2:16PM|#
if you add a single segment of DNA to an organisms' genome, the
previously existing, evolved, naturally selected genome is still
there to provide the normal immunological protection unless:
1. the inserted segment itself is toxic (solution: don't release
population into the wild, destroy lab colonies, don't use this
segment of DNA)
2. the segment is inserted at a position that disrupts normal gene
function of a gene involved in immune response (solution: insert
genetically engineered segment at a different position)
your tutoring fee is $20.00
|4.13.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Among other reasons, because the inserted sequence breaks
the sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point. If it was the
sequence in the vicinity of the insertion point that provided
immunity against deadly bacterium X, then the frankenbees will
sweep the planet until one encounters bacterium X. This bee is
called Patient Zero. He spreads bacterium X through the bee
population and then all the bees die, suddenly.
Dave, I realize you are smart enough to get an engineering degree
and a law degree. However, you also believe lots of stuff that I
find completely nuts.
So I am not going to be satisfied with your analysis. Can you
provide references or are you trying to derive this from first
principles yourself?
Then the carricks and the ray ray's come out and say, "I guess
the people unlucky enough to rely on ecosystems that rely on bees.
Nobody could have foreseen this tragedy of the commons. It is force
majeure."
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:30PM|#
2. the segment is inserted at a position that disrupts
normal gene function of a gene involved in immune response
(solution: insert genetically engineered segment at a different
position)
1. You can do that if gm is introduced sufficiently gradually so
that any unforeseen impairment is not catastrophic. That is one
reason that purposeful cross breeding has worked so well in
agriculture. That may not hold up so well gene propagation is sped
up by: (i) economic centralization; and/or (ii) cloning.
2. Although I used bacterial susceptibility as an example, the
susceptibility might be structural susceptibility to a virus or
prion. It might be susceptibility to a toxin. If the entire next
generation of humans were cloned from Cab's kid, I think even Cab
would admit that that would be a problem. We don't know why he is
allergic to peanuts -- what portions of his DNA make him that way
(or do we?).
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Dave, I realize you are smart enough to get an engineering
degree and a law degree. However, you also believe lots of stuff
that I find completely nuts.
So I am not going to be satisfied with your analysis. Can you
provide references or are you trying to derive this from first
principles yourself?
I am indeed arguing from "first principles" if you will. Here is
what less than 5 minutes of GOOGLE research (2 searches)
uncovered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlavrSavr
(scroll down to antibiotic resistance)
the first search regarding the onco-mouse had some interesting
results, too, but nothing as directly to the point.
Speaking of nutsy beliefs, I know you would know I was smart even
if you had no idea about my degrees. Smart people can recognize
intelligence in others. I believe that is actually the best
intelligence test.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 2:39PM|#
what portions of his DNA make him that way (or do
we?).
I kind of hope we don't, from an anti-eugenics standpoint.
biologist|4.13.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Dave W.,
it is relatively easy to determine DNA sequences, and it is
possible to find the inserted segment, since it is of known
sequence and determine if it has been inserted in a gene or in a
non-coding region ("junk DNA"), and there are vast stretches of
non-coding DNA in which to insert the sequence
as far as genetic variability in general, it is important to
maintain genetic variability, so the GM populations ought to be
created with this in mind, which is easy enough to do.
|4.13.07 @ 2:44PM|#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlavrSavr
I read it. I does not support your argument that GM-ing poses an
intrinsic risk that the resultant organism is susceptible to future
threats from evolving bacteria.
It says that the "designers" of thie tomato made a stupid decision
to use a specific gene as a marker that has a potential to increase
the rate of bacteria resistant to anti-biotics.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:03PM|#
It says that the "designers" of thie tomato made a stupid
decision to use a specific gene as a marker that has a potential to
increase the rate of bacteria resistant to anti-biotics.
Well, at a more general level it said that wide propagation of the
tomato design might have had some unforeseeable and bad effects as
far as bacteria go. But you are right, they didn't say that some
existing bacterium might have wiped out the tomato, the way
smallpox did in the Native Americans.
Let me try a different tack. We don't know what causes multiple
sclerosis (MS). there appear to be some genetic links, but these
links are not understood at the level of gene sequences. Doesn't
this mean that any genetic manipulation could increase a species'
susceptibility to MS?
|4.13.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Doesn't this mean that any genetic manipulation could
increase a species' susceptibility to MS?
The magic word here is could.
You are not making arguments about probability of latent errors in
a fully-peer-reviewed engineering process to generate GM organisms.
You are merely arguing from a position of fear, uncertainty, and
doubt (FUD) about every imaginable catastrophe the
could happen.
Unfortunately, I am losing my computer in a short while. So if I
don't participate anymore, it is not because I have lost interest
in the topic.
|4.13.07 @ 3:18PM|#
You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite,
non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control
system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and
lands on top of my house!!!
I think we should ground the shuttle until the experts can get
together and figure out how to prevent that.
|4.13.07 @ 3:32PM|#
carrick | April 13, 2007, 3:18pm | #
You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a
finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple
redundant flight control system fail in such way that the shuttle
falls from the sky and lands on top of my house!!!
Put me down for $5 that it happens on the next shuttle flight.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:32PM|#
You are not making arguments about probability of latent
errors in a fully-peer-reviewed engineering process to generate GM
organisms. You are merely arguing from a position of fear,
uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about every imaginable catastrophe the
could happen.
Like I said on the previous thread about this -- I am talking about
aggregation of small risks. Yeah, MS is just one disease, but you
have to keep in mind that there are many potential diseases in the
world. AIDS didn't get geared up until the 80s. Neither did the
deadly type of e coli that kills people. the could happens are not
limited to MS. it is MS plus every communicable disease you have
heard of, plus every communicable disease that doesn't have a name
yet.
Now even aggregating all these diseases and potential diseases:
still the risk of a single gene tweak is probably still small. But
tweaking genes aggregates the risk. Hopefully only linearly, and
not geometrically or exponentially, but at least linearly.
As far as your faith in peer review (which btw is why you are
similar to ray ray), that is what the flavr savr citation was for.
all this peer review and they did not foresee low crop yields and
the fact that the picking tools would smush the tomatoes. Yikes!
the problem with the picking machines should have been foreseeable
on "first principles" -- no geneticists required, but somehow they
missed this problem prior to rolling out on a commercial
scale.
The only scarier possibility is that low yields and smushing were a
smokescreen because that would have played better with the public
than: "most of the tomatoes got a disease and died." that would not
have played well at all, would it have? I mean, if that were the
case, then it would not be lying to say that yields were
low and the picking machines smushed what tomatoes there were. If I
were a CalGene investor, I would be out there smushing sick
tomatoes with my own hands, like an Arthur Andersen accountant
smashing harddrives.
I mean, maybe not. It is impossible for the likes of you or me to
know either way. but I can't believe that you could read the
account of the Flavr Savr and believe in the integrity of the
process.
Flavr Savrs were the new thing when I was a young patent lawyer in
California. Phen fen hit next, just as I was moving to Cincinnati,
just in time for P&G's olestra roll-out. it was so long ago
that HnR couldn't believe that a knuckleheaded jury would
pay out on a VIOXX claim. There is a word for thinking about these
things. The word is "paranoia." I wish they hadn't chosen such a
loaded word to describe this line of inquiry.
Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 3:48PM|#
You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a finite,
non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight control
system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky and
lands on top of my house!!!
What if they were launching a hundred shuttles next year? Or a
thousand? Or a million?
Now consider that each shuttle crash might take out just one house,
or might burn down a whole city a-la the McGillicuddy cow.
At what point do you start worrying?
(Think of each genetic manipulation as one shuttle.)
uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 4:15PM|#
The hope in variation is that various susceptabilities are not
shared. Insufficient variation in any populaton means they all may
share a susceptability.
As far as GM vs "natural" organisms, we only need to take care that
we don't remove existing strengths while adding new ones.
New threats are a threat to GM stuff as well as to existing stuff,
because it has not existed before.
Russell|4.13.07 @ 7:45PM|#
"The word is "paranoia." I wish they hadn't chosen such a loaded
word to describe this line of inquiry."
Actually, it should be saved for speculation that declining DDT
levels in the environment have rendered bees more palatable to
mites , leading to a food chain collapse as pollination tanks and
animals follow flowering plants into extinction.
Don't tell Fumento or he'll sell the exclusive to the Washington
Times
|4.13.07 @ 8:23PM|#
You know, every time the shuttle goes up, there is a
finite, non-zero probablity that the quadruple redundant flight
control system fail in such way that the shuttle falls from the sky
and lands on top of my house!!!
What if they were launching a hundred shuttles next year? Or a
thousand? Or a million?
Now consider that each shuttle crash might take out just one house,
or might burn down a whole city a-la the McGillicuddy cow.
At what point do you start worrying?
Wow, Dave, just wow.
The probability that the shuttle could fall on my house is
non-zero, but it is vanishingly small. A million times a
vanishingly small probability is still beyond extremely
remote.
Aggregating hundreds or thousands of extremely remote to
vanishingly small probabilities is still in the range of remote to
extremely remote.
The probability of you getting hit by a bus are many orders of
magnitude above that. If you really worry about the stuff you say
you worry about, I don't see how you ever leave the house in the
morning due to fear of everything.
|4.13.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I mean, maybe not. It is impossible for the likes of you or
me to know either way. but I can't believe that you could read the
account of the Flavr Savr and believe in the integrity of the
process.
Dave, I don't have "faith" in peer review. I am a practicing
engineer with 20+ years of experience in an industry that builds
machines that can kill people when they fail. I have a detailed
understanding of the standard engineering process and I understand
what is does well and how it breaks down.
And yes, the primary weakness of the engineering process is the
problem that plagues every non-trivial endeavor -- PEOPLE.
Even with well-established engineering processes with robust peer
review, mistakes slip through. If you are uncomfortable with that
perhaps you should retire to a cave.
Guy Montag|4.13.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Are you trying to generate buzz for the New
Chrysler?
Not if it is owned by the old
Albert Gore, Jr.!
Ron, I am not so interested in the Siera Club reaction as I am
about the Sahara Club reaction :)
|4.13.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Guy Montag | April 13, 2007, 9:35pm | #
Are you trying to generate buzz for the New Chrysler?
Not if it is owned by the old Albert Gore, Jr.!
I'm with you on that Guy.
|4.14.07 @ 3:13AM|#
CCD has hit countries in Europe where there is very little, if
any, GM crops. That's just typical of environmental groups to try
& hijack the latest environmental "scare" for their own
political purposes.
Beekeepers need help financially to stay in business. Before CCD
caught everyone's attention, we have been fighting several other
major pests for the past two decades that had already eroded the
financial viability of beekeeping. There is so little money to be
made (net of expenses) in beekeeping these days, it's little wonder
that there are half as many beekeepers today, as existed 15 years
ago.
Now THERE'S a scary statistic. Either bees are a valuable commodity
to national economies, or they are not. If they are, then the
Gov'ts of the U.S. and Canada had better start showing some
practical support to the folks still remaining in this industry.
Many beekeepers I've spoken to are viewing CCD as "the straw that
broke the camel's back", in terms of the financial viability of
remianing in beekeeping.
|4.14.07 @ 5:21AM|#
Has anyone considered the possiblity the bees are trying to send
us a message.
...
"So long, and thanks for all the flowers!"
=D
|4.14.07 @ 7:20AM|#
great article. everyone knows that if scientists do short term testing, the results are definitively accurate and magically predict all long term effects. look at how safe, thorough and trustworthy the pharm. drug testing industry results are. trust the experiments of science above all else. any one who questions the establishment is a traitorous terrorist. if you suggest there is a bee problem due to humanity's meddling, you must be working for al qaeda. Bow to all technology. step on a family farmer to get a better look. donate to your local billionaire. nothing to see here . everything's fine. i cant hear you la la la la la. just obey and wait for jesus.
|4.14.07 @ 7:23AM|#
i just went outside and found a pile of dead bees. they are all coming to my backyard and stinging each other and arranging their dead bodies in the shape of sun myung moon having sex with the virgin mary. and she's finally smiling!!!!!
|4.14.07 @ 8:49AM|#
Beekeeper,
it is true that there is little money to be made as a beekeeper.
There is little to be made as a farmer as well... BUT.... No matter
how bad it is... never give up...
I grow veggies for a living, and I definately know where you are
coming from... but if everyone who does this stuff for a living
gave up due to adversity... where would that leave us? Heres a
thought.... Diversify.
|4.14.07 @ 11:23AM|#
biologist and carrick: I just want to say thanks for your efforts to educate apparently frightened people about genetically enhanced crops.
Lydia|4.15.07 @ 7:20PM|#
It's clear that Mr. Bailey is not being paid by the Sierra Club. Bashing them achieves little purpose; if it's truth we're after, then we need only look to the "scientific community" (a very homogeneous bunch, to be sure), to the media, or to large multinational corporations that seek to better society (not to make money). In fact, noone really knows why bees are dying from viral infections, but we need to look at everything. And bees have been known to travel to other continents, so what we do here in the U.S. has a global impact. Of course, if a similar phenomenon were occurring in humans, the WHO would be all over it - right?
uncle sam|4.15.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
"Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for
mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees"
|4.15.07 @ 10:59PM|#
In their sadly predictable knee-jerk fashion, the good folks at Reason are bending over backwards to absolve corporate America from any possible responsabilty for yet another environmental disaster.
Sandy|4.15.07 @ 11:50PM|#
European environmentalists should worry about honeybees.
Everybody else's environmentalists should check if native
populations are affected, then shrug if not--unless you're an
agricultural scientist. Then you should probably get scared
shitless.
If native populations are being affected negatively, it's an
environmental concern. Europe appears to have an environmental
problem. Everybody else has an agricultural problem, if they want
to be consistent with their other policies on introduced
species.
I'm mainly pointing out the hypocrisy in the construction of
"environment" and "introduced." It's not the clean, objective
definition they would like us to believe.
|4.16.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Grotius surprised some of us by telling B.t. is a bacteria
organic farmers use. I got the impression some people here conclude
that this means this theory of Bt causing bees to die is just as
likely caused by organic farmers.
But there's quite a difference.
The organic farmers spray a solution with Bt on (lepidopteran)
pest-infected fields.
Bt-crops contain the (original or improved) gene which makes the
poison, currently in such a way that they contain the poison all
the time in about every part of the plant.
I hope you can spot the difference.
|4.16.07 @ 5:11PM|#
carrick told that it doesn't take genetically modified organisms
to cause a single species to collapse instantaneously.
I think the issue is not whether or not only GM could cause this.
It is just that according to them the usual diseases take some time
to spread. Since these bee hives died at a very fast rate, they are
looking to identify causes that could act so fast. This Bt-bee
connection is one possible cause that seems worth investigating.
Other theories are welcome of course.
Anyway in Europe we already have huge problems with beekeeping,
with the Varroa mite and another disease I'm too lazy to look up
now.
Stephanie|10.21.09 @ 10:28AM|#
This article does not convince me to dismiss GMO crops as a
potential culprit. None of the studies looked at long term
effects of the crops, and just because a handful of controlled
experiments rejects the idea, does not mean the general public
should blindly swallow this.
I would even venture to believe that the writer of this article
is biased towards Genetically modified plant crops for one reason
or another.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245