h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One of the UK's top scientists has blamed public and political hysteria over GM foods for his decision to decamp to Canada.
Professor Roger Gosden, 51, of Leeds University, plans to leave the UK in October to take up a post at McGill University's Royal Victoria Hospital in Quebec, Canada.

He pioneered a technique to graft ovaries into sterile women, used to treat Margaret Lloyd-Hart in the US earlier this year.

Prof Gosden told the Daily Telegraph that one of reasons for his departure was the public and political backlash against biotechnology and genetic science.



Prof Roger Gosden is leaving for Canada
"With all the fuss over GM food and so on, it is difficult to be a scientist in Britain.

"One does not feel proud of being a scientist any longer. And I fear it is very discouraging for our young people."

Dr John Mulvey, founder of the Save British Science lobby group, says although there were no recent figures on the number of scientists lost to industry or to posts abroad, there was strong anecdotal evidence.


Universities find it increasingly difficult to recruit top scientists, and graduates were opting for more lucrative positions offered in the US or Europe.

It does not help that people in the UK were more sensitive about developments in science than in other countries.

"There is no doubt it is a serious issue, this backlash. It certainly makes it more difficult for people working in this area.

"The BSE crisis developed a sort of level of distrust, of anti-science, and unease about the levels of expenditure on science.

"It is our bad luck that the population here has been sensitised to these dangers over several years, and that's why [GM foods] were seized upon."

It was unfortunate that biotechnology and GM foods had not been argued rationally in the media, he said.

"It makes it difficult to have a balanced response to it."

Prof Gosden began his research career in 1970 in Cambridge under Professor Robert Edwards, who pioneered test tube baby technology with Patrick Steptoe.


Professor Edwards says his former colleague would most likely have been driven out by the lack of good research facilities in the UK, rather than the lure by a big salary package.

"That has been offered to him in Montreal, so off he goes. There's another Briton gone over there."

By moving to Canada, Prof Gosden hopes to work with other leaders in the field to improve the frozen storage and transplantation of ovarian tissue for infertility treatments.

More money, more scientists

In June, Save British Science and university vice-chancellors urged the Government to give lecturers and researchers a substantial pay boost to prevent an accelerating scientific brain drain.

They had been mobilised by an independent report by Sir Michael Bett, a senior civil servant, which called for a £450m boost to academic earnings.

And Britain's largest medical research charity, the Wellcome Trust, gave its senior scientists a record 30% salary increase.

I think the last paragraphs give the most telling reasons for the brain drain. Research facilities in the UK are medievil in may universities, and pay is appalling. If I could double my salary by doing private research in the US, I'd probably be on the next plane as well.

Public hysteria over GM is unfortunate, however, it was bound to happen. People have been lied to too often in the UK in the last decades, over the nuclear industry, nuclear waste, water supplies, sea pollution, BSE, etc. and of course there is a widespread belief that science can only do more harm than good.

18th Century Belief:
Science = Philanthropy = Individual endeavour = Benefit of all mankind

21st Centuty Belief:
Science = Multinational Interests = politics = corporate gain at expense of "the man in the street"

The problem is the man in the street is so often proved right, by politicians covering up massive outbreaks of disease, by biotech companies ignoring legislation when planting test crops, by cover ups over nuclear leaks etc.

It would be very sad if the cowboy attitude of multinational science gave rise to a new generation of luddites, unwilling to learn about science and even less willing to allow others to practise it.

=================================================
"Business: The Economy - GM giants face court challenge

It is possible that no industry in modern commercial history has failed so miserably to win public support as the life science companies; the designers and manufacturers of genetically modified seeds. Companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Aventis.

The latest attack on them, by what its supporters say is an international alliance of concerned farmers, is led by the Washington lobby groups the Foundation for Economic Trends, and the National Family Farm Coalition. It aims to bring the biggest anti-trust case ever. (It may have to squabble with the US Government/Microsoft case on that). The claim is that these big companies are exploiting bio-engineering techniques to dominate world agriculture.

The fear is that within a decade, world food processes will be controlled by maybe ten large privately owned American and European companies. The scope for abuse would be enormous, they say. The lobbyists have done a good job of expressing their case in Washington legal circles.

They've won the backing of 20 law firms, all on "no-win, no-fee" terms. Michael Hausfeld is a partner in Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll. He does not think they will win. He says he is taking the case on principle. He expects the case to come to court by late November, or December, when it may coincide with the Seattle round of World Trade Organisation talks. It would be the first truly global challenge to the life science companies.

At the core of the protestors' case is the principle that the life science companies will own the offspring of the seeds they sell - if any. International law on intellectual property rights has granted them this power. Opposition to the GM food programme is widespread, but probably at its weakest in developing countries where cost advantages are attractive to poor farmers.


In Argentina, Professor Carlos Correa at the University of Buenos Aires says that some of these companies will not need the protection of copyright law. He points out that the so-called "terminator seeds" - usually linked with soya beans - carry their own copyright protection. Since they produce infertile seeds, the technology stays with the manufacturer. The farmer must return to the manufacturer for more seed, year after year. GM companies say that terminator seeds have yet to be fully developed and some say that it will be five years before they will be ready for market.

There is something of the near-hysterical, though, about the anti-GM food lobby. It is unlikely that the directors, senior managers, scientists and other employees of the life science companies are piratical buccaneers bent on taking over the world. They see themselves as manufacturers competing in a tough world just like any other industry. They are right, of course. It's not their competitive spirit that baffles many of those members of the international public who have not yet been won over. It's the fear that neither the companies nor anyone else knows what the long term effect of these genetic experiments may be.

When the nuclear power industry was in its infancy, in the 1950s, and appeared to its many admirers to be the answer to all the world's energy problems, a news note in the respected popular scientific magazine New Scientist reported in a short paragraph an accident at the Windscale nuclear power plant - now known as Sellafield.

The accident has raised questions about safety, said the report, but (the author) believes atomic industry to be no more dangerous than conventional industry. Radioactivity is easily detected, some chemical hazards are not. Little was known about the 1957 Windscale leak and subsequent ground contamination for many years. Even now it is hard to get all the facts. The area concerned is secured and unapproachable.

A large, long and public anti-trust case in the United States could be the best thing for the GM industry as well as its detractors. It would offer a forum, even if a combative one, where all sides of the argument could be aired - and where, hopefully, good science and good sense will win the day."

We could find ourselves reviewing the US legal decision making it
possable to patent "life".

I did wonder how they found a form of words to justify that at the time.

If you cannot patent a new traditionally breed of cow why can you patent a new
breed of mouse? And if you make that point what happens to the
argument in favour of GM which runs along the lines that it is
"only" a more advanced form of selective breeding?

It doesn't follow directly on from the latest comments, but many of us have been discussing GMOs in relation to the more general subject of Third World Development, and the issues associated. This is part of the leaving speech for J Brian Atwood, Head of the US Agency for International Development. It provides interesting reading:

RETIRING US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HEAD VENTS FRUSTRATION

J. Brian Atwood has a disquieting message as he prepares to step down as head of the U.S. foreign aid agency: Don't believe those stories about democracy and free enterprise enabling developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty.

And part of the problem, according to Atwood, is what he sees as
Washington's pinch-penny attitude toward Third World problems. "What will it take to wake up our political leaders?" he asked. "More failed states? More wars? More south-to-north migration? More transmission of infectious diseases? More terrorism?" After six years as head of the Agency for International Development, Atwood will return to the private sector next week. He could have gone quietly, as his predecessors have done, but decided not to.
He gave his valedictory Tuesday at a luncheon at the Overseas Development Council, which attempts to sensitize opinion-makers on Third World issues. "The sad and even dangerous reality is that globalization and the democratic market economy movement have not closed the gap between rich and poor," he said.

'Much of the change we are seeing is occurring within the previous ruling classes of these societies. Some in the donor community seem content to nurture reform without equity." Economic growth, he said, can reduce poverty only with investments in health care, education, job creation, community development and food security.

The industrial world is getting "shamelessly rich" while most of the world's people are losing ground, Atwood said. He put the ratio of rich to poor at about 65 to 1, or for every $65 earned in industrial countries, $1 is earned in poor ones. About 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty, he said.

Atwood called the government's international affairs budget "a joke.
There is no money to do anything," he said. "It's outrageous." He took aim at the congressional class of 1994, the election that gave Republicans control of the House and Senate. It was filled with "nonpassport-carrying members," Atwood said, a not-so-subtle suggestion that such people think provincially, not globally.
Another source of distress for Atwood was U.S. policy toward the United Nations. "What we are doing to the United Nations system is unconscionable," he said. "At a time when the U.N. is bending under the weight of human crises, most emanating from the developing world, we are sapping it of its vitality by refusing to pay our bills. Then we criticize it for not doing its job."

He described as "shameful" a recent compromise under which the Clinton
administration would pay $819 million in arrears on the condition that it pay a smaller share in the future. The congressionally drafted approach is 'designed to appease people whose real goal is to kill the United Nations," Atwood said.

Atwood was scheduled to become ambassador to Brazil after his service at AID, but Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, refused to convene hearings on the nomination.
Helms was smarting from Atwood's characterization of him as an
"isolationist' and his accusation that Helms drew up complicated government reorganization plans "on the back of an envelope." Atwood withdrew his name from consideration for the Brazil post in May.

And things move on.

Aparently Monsanto and Greenpeace had a chat in London.
Monsanto agreed to give up on "terminator" technology which
it does not own and Greenpeace agreed to give them a hand
developing more apropriate use of the technology that they
do have.

Aparently several US growers are or are about to experience
a lack of buyers of their GM crops.

In the UK farmers have been known to use the phrase
"Don't Critisise me with a full stoamach". I actually
agree with some of the sentiment.
In todays world, a large percentage of the population do not have a full stoamach.
They also do not have a ready way to voice critisism.
There is a strong possability that high technology foods are contributing to their hunger.

Such food upsets my digestion. There is more than one kind of wholesome.

"Monsanto, the beleaguered American biotechnology company, is coming under intense pressure from Wall Street analysts and professional investors in New York to dismember itself in the wake of the campaign against genetically modified food." according to the Guardian today.

Ne'er moind eh...

Your
"
I do not, however, think that public opinion should be allowed to decide
*what* experiments are conducted.
"
Sounds reasonable to individuals who are focused on the benificial outcomes that have resulted from research.
The public however are becoming increasingly aware of the difference between science and technology.
Much of genetic research is not undertaken in search of new scientific truth but is rather in search of
the best ie. most economic means of selling somebody something.

A different matter entirely.

V. true, however I still do not think we should have science by consensus, or we'd still be held up in a planning committee looking at the pros and cons of the wheel. There does need to be transparancy, and informed debate, so that if a company is doing something that is morally obscene, or whose motives are highly questionable then the forces of economics can be brought to bear on them, as is happening with Monsanto now. Their share prices have plunged, and they are looking at getting rid of their GMO section because of global hostility to it. Whether that hostility is justified in this case has already been the subject of much blethering.

There is evidence to suggest that some genetically-modified (GM) crops now being grown commercially in the US can have distinct health advantages, according to plant disease experts.
Corn which has been engineered to make it resistant to insects also has lower levels of mycotoxins, which are potentially dangerous to humans and animals and are produced by the fungi that cause plant diseases.

Insects can exacerbate the problems. When larvae chew on stalks and kernels, they create wounds where fungal spores can enter the plant. Once established, these fungi often produce mycotoxins. Some of these, such as fumonisin, can be fatal to horses and pigs, and are probable human carcinogens.

Bt-corn has become very popular with American farmers. It has been modified to incorporate a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This makes the plant tissue toxic to the European corn borer, a significant pest that hides in the stalks of the plant, making it difficult to control with chemical sprays.

Dr Gary Munkvold, a plant pathologist at Iowa State University, says that some of the add-on benefits of GM crops should not be overlooked in the on-going debate about their safety.

'Benefit to consumers'

"Lower mycotoxin concentrations in Bt-corn hybrids clearly represent a benefit to consumers," he says. "Studies show Bt-corn hybrids that control European corn borer damage to kernels usually have very little Fusarium ear rot, and consequently, lower fumonisin concentrations."

Dr Munkvold details some of the toxins that can build up in corn in an article he has written for the American Phytopathological Society (APS).

He says kernel rot caused by the fungus Aspergillus is associated with insect damage to corn ears, and this can lead to the most notorious mycotoxins found in corn, the aflatoxins.

"The economic impact of aflatoxins has been greater than that of other mycotoxins in corn because aflatoxins can be passed into milk if dairy cows consume contaminated grain," says Dr Munkvold.

Bt-corn was at the centre of the GM controversy in May when scientists from Cornell University, US, showed that pollen from the crop could kill the larvae of Monarch butterflies. Their research, published in the journal Nature, was a demonstration of how the new GM technology might have unwanted consequences for biodiversity.

> GM technology might have unwanted consequences for biodiversity.

I wonder about this, you know. What kind of consequences are unwanted and why? Let's say Monarch butterflies where wiped out in a particular area, what would that mean?

From my limited and unchecked knowledge of the life and times of the Monarch, is that they do represent a fairly important part of the ecological structure in the arease where they are prevalent (and as I recall these are fairly limited and already under threat). A change like this would probably wipe them out completely, which cannot be condoned for reasons of greater agricultural efficiency!

Si, I wouldn't have thought you would be in favour of allowing hte extinction of species for no good reason?

> From my limited and unchecked knowledge of the life and times of the Monarch, is that they do represent a fairly
> important part of the ecological structure in the arease where they are prevalent (and as I recall these are fairly limited
> and already under threat). A change like this would probably wipe them out completely, which cannot be condoned
> for reasons of greater agricultural efficiency!

They're an important part of the *current* ecological structure of the area, but removing them would simply create a niche, deforming the fitness landscapes of their co-evolutionary partners. The result is completely unpredictable. The common view seems to be, though, that *whatever* the result was, it would be bad. This is just part of the fragile earth fallacy. Life goes on (and on, and on, in ever increasding complexity in accordance with some power law or other).

> Si, I wouldn't have thought you would be in favour of allowing hte extinction of species for no good reason?

Maybe agricultural efficiency is a "good reason" at the cost of a negligable blip in biodiversity. I dunno.

>This is just part of the fragile earth fallacy. Life goes on (and
>on, and on, in ever increasding complexity in accordance with some
>power law or other).

Is it, by Jupiter? Let that complexity go too far, and the conditions for continued human existence will be overstretched. Entropy is not the friend of the higher species. And while that might be "life", it wouldn't be, at least not for us, and while that not be such a bad thing for hte planet, personally it'd be a bit disappointing.

>Maybe agricultural efficiency is a "good reason" at the cost of a
>negligable blip in biodiversity. I dunno.

Now that's just mean!!

> Let that complexity go too far, and the conditions for
> continued human existence will be overstretched.
...
> And while that might be "life", it wouldn't
> be, at least not for us, and while that not be such a bad thing for hte
> planet, personally it'd be a bit disappointing.

Aha! Yes. Provided we're all being honest about our selfish humanism, and it's really "our world" we want to preserve, then we'll agree. Just don't try to tell me I'm raping some kind of neo-gaian "Mother Earth" *spit* - that we have some kind of custodial responsibility for all creatures great and small for "their sake".

http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?MESSAGES[(*?threadid*13364?forumid*16478)threads[(threadid*13364?forumid*16478?subset*0)#p47444

"that we have some kind of custodial responsibility for all creatures great and small for "their
sake".

Then you have the people who feel good about themselves because they believe themselves to
be less destructive than others.

At bottom we still have the question to ask.

Can we risk widespread genetic modification of our food crops. What happens to the insects that keep those
crops healthy, what happens to those crops natural defences when we mess with them.
Are we anywhare near the necessary level of understanding?
Science may be able to tell us the small scale effects but that is not what worries people.

It is a matter of assessment time realy. Choosing suitable and small steps to advance our knowledge.
That and retaining some chance of rejection if that is the public decision.

>Provided we're all being honest about our selfish humanism, and it's
>really "our world" we want to preserve, then we'll agree. Just don't
>try to tell me I'm raping some kind of neo-gaian "Mother Earth"
>*spit* - that we have some kind of custodial responsibility for all
>creatures great and small for "their sake".

No, I'm not going to accuse you/us of raping "Mother Earth", but neither should we be in such a hurry to remove ourselves from the chain of existence. Since we are self aware, able to control many of the features of the environment to our own benefit, surely it is sensible to nurture that envirnment to the long term benefit of our species, not the short term gain of some of it's members (As you seem to be advocating).

While you may be delighted by the mighty whiteness of your sliced loaf, your grandchildren may not thank you for their club feet. (It's Monday, I'm not in the mood for cheery visions of the future)

"We have not inherited this land from our ancestors. We have borrowed it from our children."

Frustrated fiddling with Christmas tree fairy lights could become a thing of the past as genetic engineers have proposed a tree which grows its own lights.
The idea for glowing pine needles was dreamed up by five postgraduate students at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, as their entry in a biotechnology competition.

It is a perfectly possible proposition, as genetic engineers elsewhere have already created glowing mice, silk and potatoes.

'Only problem cost'

Neurophysiology student Katy Presland, 29, said: "We're talking about a green luminescent Christmas tree that glows in the dark and produces a noticeable light during the day.

"It is quite feasible. The only problem in reality is the cost," she added.

"We calculate that the initial trees would cost about £200, which means going for the upper end of the market. But I'm sure a lot of people would love them, especially the Americans."

Jellyfish and fireflies

The team detail a plan to modify a Douglas spruce with two genes to make it illuminate. These would taken from fluorescent jellyfish and fireflies. The first gene produces a substance called green fluorescent protein (GFP), while the second results in an enzyme called luciferase.

The trees would be modified by infecting seedlings with a harmless bacterium carrying the genes. A chemical compound called luciferin is needed to activate luciferase, which in turn "switches on" GFP and makes it glow.

In the case of the luminous Douglas spruce, the luciferin would be mixed into a special fertilizer sold with the tree.

The genes for green fluorescence have been widely used by genetic engineers because they allows scientists to see at a glance whether an attempt to introduce a gene into an organism has been successful.

Blue fluorescent proteins have also been discovered and, last month, a red fluorescent protein was found in a coral. This means that, in theory, the GM Christmas tree could grow its own multicoloured lights.

I think that the media have got so much to answer for regarding the current climate in Britain for GM products of any sort.
Just remember that is the tabloid newspapers who print the scare stories in the biggest font possible.....the more intellectual papers will give a balanced story on page 15 in the bottom right hand corner.

Bad news is good news.

This media bias is worsened by the fact that the tabloid readers, no offence meant people, are often of the less educated realm of society. Disturbingly this is the 'public' that scientists are trying to inform. The broadsheet readers merely accept the points they read, whilst the tabloid readers go and natter/gripe to their neighbour about how the mad and evil scientists are trying to kill the world.

I am aware that this is an obvious exaggeration of the way it works but my point is valid.

Do the uninformed public have a right to discuss these matters? Wouldn't it be better not to have any stories reported in the general news? I'm not saying that Genetic studies should go underground, but merely aim for a much lower profile so that only interested parties would see recent news.

The last thing we want is more protestors destroying crops (ironically throwing pollen etc. etc. up into the air promoting the chance of genetic spread) or talk-shows like Vannessa deciding that the use of bacteria in food production is disgusting (FACT!!!). The public is uninformed but believes that they know enough because they've read the papers.

Let the public watch Tommorrow's World but do not let them into our laboratories.
Shouldn't science be left to the scientists?

Hmmm. I want to agree with you so much... and yet I have to disagree.

You are right that a scientifically illiterate public is being fed drivel by a scientifically illiterate, headline grabbing media.

While, in principle, scientists should be safe to get on with what they do for the benefit of humanity, they can't. They need research grants that are provided by businesses that need to turn a profit. Businesses that don't give a shit about your grandchildren, so we, the public, need to know what they are doing.

However, that means that we need to 'understand' what they're doing and we, on the whole, think that genes look cool when stone washed.

The answer is not to deny the public access to current research. The answer is to teach them how to understand current research. Teach them how to think.

I know what you mean, it is _so_ frustrating to listen to GM discussions on the radio - I drive along shouting into thin air at these f***ing idiots paraded as experts on both sides. What about what really matters? What *are* the chances that crop A will cross pollinate crop B? If that happened, what do we _think_ would happen? How wide does crop C's boundary have to be - in metres please? What precautions are being taken to ensure that Billy Organic's crops down the road don't cross pollinate with that wild flower over there? Exactly *how* has crop X been modified and what would it mean if I ate it? You're surprised that, if you modify potatoes to synthesise toxins, you get toxic potatoes and sick rats? AARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Don't take it out on a public that doesn't understand - campaign to ensure that future generations do. Did you know that, in many places, they wonder why evolutionary biology should be taught in school?

I have no problem with science being left to the scientists.
I think however that the problems arise when the science
requires to be funded.
High profile "change the world" science is made attractive to
lenders (comercial or governmental) by emphasising it's potential
for creating change / profit / savings.

At the same time, science is successfully reaching into the fundamental
beliefs of the general population and putting them on a "rational" basis (as
defined by "them"). Who would rationally expect a fish and a plant to "breed"
even based on advanced science of a few years ago?

It should come as no surprise that there is resistance.

Please note well.
It is not always ignorance that leads to opposition.
The most telling responces to inappropriate technology application
come from those who understand the science reasonably well
but have little or no direct involvement. A broader viewpoint than those
with their nose to the funding grindstone.

Like many things, it is a matter of viewpoint.
However if science is to be advanced by individuals who cannot accept public
guidance on occasion about what an advance IS then we will have to
see who can do without who.