I just ate a packaged burrito. It wasn’t my usual brand. On the package in several places was the proclamation that no GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) were used. They obviously displayed that fact because they thought it was a selling point – we do live in a capitalistic system. But it made me wonder what percentage of the buying population even knows what a GMO is – its benefits – its dangers? How many just have a gut reaction – “They’re modifying nature’s genes? That can’t be good!” and are repelled. Little do they know, apparently, that nature itself is in a continuous process of modifying its own genes – the definition of evolution.
If one looks at an ear of corn from 200 years ago it bears little
resemblance to a modern ear. It was
scrawny. Nature , aided by man via
selective cultivation, modified the corn's genes.
If both nature and man, today, hadn’t genetically modify our corn, – –
hundreds of thousands of the world’s children would have died a premature death
because of starvation. Is that better?
The 21st century is going to be the century of genetic
engineering. (The 20th
century was the century of physics and technology.) We’re gonna cure many
diseases caused by genetic faults. The
benefit will be tremendous.
Incidentally, on this path, we may find a way to make corn resistant to
pests. Oh wait, we already have. It’s called GMO corn. I have yet to fathom people’s
concerns. Do people think in someway
the modified genes will replace some of their own genes and they will
morph? I don’t get it.
This concern about GMOs is just one facet about the public’s attitude
towards science. Another issue is that
of climate change. How can one look at
a graph of the rising CO2 levels compared with mankind’s industrial prowess –
with knowledge of the enormous impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas - and not
conclude that homo sapiens is contributing to (if not causing) the
climate change?
When is the last time the consensus of university scientists has
been wrong? Believe me, there is a
great satisfaction among them to prove each other wrong. Corporate laboratories – say, for the
cigarette manufacturers – can have ulterior motives and lie for profit. Some university professors can just do bad
science ( e.g., cold fusion in 1989 by Pons and Fleischmann) but that is rapidly checked and
corrected by others. Why would most of the
scientists lie?
I’ll wait for
another post before I start on nuclear energy…
(P.S., I didn't like the burrito and won't buy that brand again.)
(P.S., I didn't like the burrito and won't buy that brand again.)
2014 Lester C. Welch
I must admit, I don't know all the facts about GMO's. I think that sometimes it is easy to be fearful of things we don't understand. But I agree it is our responsibility to try to sort the facts out. PBS has an interesting discussion on it.
ReplyDeleteI love your Carl Sagan quote. A friend of mine (who is very smart!) somehow does not trust science to guide her thinking. She took an herbal supplement for a chronic condition she has and ended up with significant damage to her liver. Fortunately she and her liver survived, but her use of the herbal supplement was based on "it's natural, so it must be safe". Scary stuff. Why would you not trust evidence based science?
I think that those who doubt climate change are getting their information from a biased source. How this gets so twisted is beyond me. The latest "I'm not a scientist" from John Boehner et al is shameful.
Thanks for another thoughtful post. I'm off to read more about GMO's!
Found this website that looks pretty good. http://grist.org/food/20-gmo-questions-animal-vegetable-controversy/
DeleteInteresting post, as usual. However I must add that a consensus of university scientists can be proven wrong. If you look at the history of the theory of continental drift you can see how difficult it is to oppose the "consensus". Your career can be ruined. In the sixties when my husband was in graduate school (geology) the faculty was still divided on this. Because we felt that the current "consensus" on the extent of man's contribution to global warming is so tied to politics we decided to take an unbiased look at the other side. There is a lot of data out there. We have now joined the growing "unsettled science" group. That, of course, does not mean that we do not have to adapt to climate change. The beauty of being retired. You have time for stuff like this.
ReplyDeleteJudy, ...it is true that a paradigm shift takes time. As Kuhn so eloquently explains in his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" the "elder statesmen" in science are slow in discarding that they have learned in the face of new evidence. However if new evidence is presented that doesn't conflict with their education (e.g., climate change) they are are much more willing to accept or discard it objectively. Continental drift was a paradigm shift. Someone said that big claims require big evidence. Thanks for the comment.
DeleteI get it about mutations and natural selection. In my view, GMO is not natural selection but instead selection by human thinking. Increased productivity and resistance to pests, maybe, but my understanding is the GMO corn is used mostly to feed cattle to satisfy the world's demand for meat - though corn is not the natural diet of cattle. Then we slide into factory farms.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the climate change issue, though.
And I'm very much in favor of open minds and learning.
There are a lot of things that man does better than nature - man built dwellings are much more convenient than caves. I don't view man's genetic engineering worse than nature's (which is, in general, random) - and, indeed, in most cases, better. Until we solve the problem of increasing population (which nature, via diseases, will do a better job than man if we don't) we have to feed the people or let them starve. I see GMO corn as a reasonable solution.
Delete