Article: Genetically engineered yeast produces opioids

It typically takes a year to produce hydrocodone from plants, but scientistst have now genetically modified yeast to make it in just a few days. The technique could improve access to medicines in impoverished nations, and later be used to develop treatments for other diseases. 

After a decade's work a team led by Stanford bioengineer Christina Smolke succeeded in finding more than 20 genes from five different organisms and engineering them into the genome of baker's yeast. In so doing they created two different microbial assembly lines, each of which took less than five days to convert sugar into one of two medicinal compounds: either thebaine, which can be refined into painkillers, or hydrocodone which is a prescription painkiller.

My first thought is, "Great! No more dependence on poppy growers in war-torn parts of the world. Poppy plants can be eradicated without a problem."

My second thought is, "Oh, no! Anyone who can make beer can now make opioids."

Article: Fears, Not Facts, Support G.M.O.-Free Food

Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat, consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled “G.M.O.-free” in the not-too-distant future. As happened with the explosion of gluten-free products, food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether it is scientifically justified.

The entire article is worth reading for the take-down of the anti-GMO hysteria.

One reads a lot about how the Right is "anti-science:" Christians because of evolution and conservatives because of skepticism about catastrophic, anthropenic global warming.

However, the Left has its areas of "anti-science" as well, and the blind fear of GMOs is certainly one of them.

[A] review of the pros and cons of G.M.O.s strongly suggests that the issue reflects a poor public understanding of the science behind them... 

[snip] 

Let’s start with the facts. Humans have been genetically modifying food and feed plants and animals for millenniums, until recently only by repeatedly crossing existing ones with relatives that have more desirable characteristics. It can take many years, even decades, to achieve a commercially viable product this way...

The techniques of making a GMO are actually imitations of nature's own show-cuts. Viruses can move genes from one bacteria to another or from one higher organism (plants, animals, etc.) to another. The human genome is full of DNA from viruses. Some of the DNA is active, some is "junk DNA."

As the ariticle points out, we share a lot of genes with dogs (about 84%). We also share many genes with plants, fungi, and bacteria.

Feel-good article of the day

Article: Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science

Five major ways, and a host of minor ways, the left ignores science. And pushes an agenda behind that ignore-ance.

How existing cropland could feed billions more

Article: How existing cropland could feed billions more

The article points out a number of ways for increasing cropland productivity while at the same time reducing the environmental impact of farming.

Increasing efficiency of the farming itself, better use of irrigation water, shifting grains away from feeding cattle, increasing yield (especially in Africa).

For me, a major point is figuring out to reduce excess nutrients on farmland. While that will not increase yield directly, shifting fertilizers away from areas where they are over-used (the US and Europe) to areas where they are under-used (Africa and Asia) would.

Bananas, Vitamin A, and Ignorance

Article: Scientists Ready to Test 'Super Banana' on Humans: Fruit could save lives through vitamin A

Vitamin A deficiency kills hundreds of thousands of children worldwide; hundreds of thousands more go blind, says a researcher.

A group of researchers have engineered a variety of bananas to produce precursors of vitamin A. Like golden rice, widespread use of this crop would help reduce vitamin A deficiency due to malnutrition in undeveloped countries.

So, help millions of children to grow up to be healthy, productive adults? Or oppose genetically modified crops and condemn them to death or blindness?

The article showed 3 comments of about 200 when I read the article. The third one said something irrelevant, but ended up with, "no thank you to GMO's." At least he was polite.

I decided to skim through the comments. I did not go through them all; they were too depressing. I am a science teacher and I am under no delusions about what students graduate from high school knowing about science. And about the half comments had some sort of stupidity/ignorance/willful blindness about the various scientific issues.

"Bananas have no fat!" "Autism is increasing because of science!" "If they are not getting vitamin A through their food it is because they aren't getting any food!" "Just what we need, more frankenfoods."

One commenter noted that bananas tend to be eaten raw and plantains tend to be cooked. The article talks about cooking the bananas. So did the researchers use bananas? Or plantains?

Both are same "plant". Some cultivars are specifically eaten raw and are called "desert bananas." Some cultivars are always cooked. Many are eaten both ways. And I have had cooked "desert bananas."

One person repeatedly cut and pasted the same rant as "replies" to other commenters. One point he made was, I think, that bananas cannot have vitamin A in them because they have no fat. However, all living things have fat in them, even if those fats/lipids are not nutritionally significant ("0%"). And bananas have some vitamin A already. The green leaves of spinach also have no nutritionally significant amounts of fats and lipids. On the other hand, they are high in fat-soluable chlorophyll and the same vitamin A precursors that have been added to banana. Which is why spinach is recognized as a good source of vitamin A.

Other commenters focused on the EEEEVVVVIIILLLL of companies, like Monsanto, turning a profit from GMO's. I have never been able to relate to the argument that profits are evil. As far as I have ever been able to determine it is just another "argument from envy." "You're rich; I hate you." Yawn.

I remember all too well the first gas crisis. The oil cartel, OPEC, cut production and raised prices. This cut supply. Because demand remained the same, oil prices soared. Gasoline prices followed suit. Oil companies' profits also soared (although not as much). Congress investigated, ready to attack EVIL oil companies for "obscene profits." What they found was relatively simple and easy to understand, even for grandstanding politicians. If 5% of a companies income is profit, then 5% of more income is more profit. They still make the same profit margin, but on more income. Therefore their profits go up. When I was relatively young, gas sold at $0.299 per gallon (or 29.9 cents). It is now pushing $4.00 per gallon in my area. I would expect the "obscene profits" of oil companies to be correspondingly larger.

At any rate, to get back to the main point: Help children or stop GMO's? Either I believe that each child is made in God's image, as I am, and I bring my ideology (and we all have an ideology) and my behavior in line with that belief. Or I believe that vast swaths of humanity are worthless, especially compared to me and the "tribe" that agrees with me.

Famine fear won't sway minds on GM crops

Article: Famine fear won't sway minds on GM crops

Do you want to feed people, prevent starvation, or help children get a good start in life? You support GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops. Science created them. They can supply extra nutrients like golden rice, or increase yield by variety of methods.

They have been studied for 50 years and only minor issues have been uncovered; none related to health or safety.

You can read the Wikipedia article above on golden rice. People actually oppose getting children needed vitamin A on the grounds of biodiversity.

The real question is do we treat humans as something special, divine in origin (that is, created by God), with a divine value and purpose? Or do we see humans as a blight on the environment?