Mark Lynas � Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013: So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.One of the founders of the anti-GM movement issues a massive mea-culpa. Fifteen years late, but hey, it's a start.
I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.
I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.
I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.
I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.
I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.
But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.
Many of his themes are familiar to my readers - I've been saying it for years. Nice to have some serious backup for a change.
(Note to Facebook friends, current and former: I was right about this and the majority of you are still wrong. I'd appreciate some recognition here.)
4 comments:
You must admit, there is no guarantee he's any better educated *now* than during his self-admitted 'uneducated' phase.
This con- opinion seems the best:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/lynas_school.html
Second best:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14582-science-dogma-and-mark-lynas
Dubious:
http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/should-we-be-persuaded-by-lynass-conversion-from-gm-critic-to-gm-proponent.html
Personally, I think we're being fed BS from both Anti- and Pro-, and its all we can do to winnow through all the misdirection to find out what's real ... and noone's done that yet in an authoritative, scholarly manner.
I note Lynas cherry-picked the crops he chose to talk about. Cotton's one of the best success stories for GM, but even that, over time, is getting tarnished.
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21842.aspx
GM seems to be a great in its initial phase, but once the ecosystem around it begins to adapt, it loses its benefits swiftly, requiring more GM wizardry - or more pesticides. Reminds me of antibiotics. Put a new compound out in the wild, Mother Nature goes on the attack.
Mark Lynas seems to have hitched his wagon to the concept of 'increasing yields' ... and that's all well and good. I'm not against increasing yields. But I expect science to be smart enough and good enough to do it sustainably and safely, as the old 50's science promotions used to shout.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate this post very much. In looking around and about your link, I've found at least a half-dozen sites to keep my eyes on in the future. This one's Pro-, but looks at least somewhat intelligent:
http://www.agbioforum.org/index.htm
"GM seems to be a great in its initial phase, but once the ecosystem around it begins to adapt, it loses its benefits swiftly, requiring more GM wizardry - or more pesticides. Reminds me of antibiotics. Put a new compound out in the wild, Mother Nature goes on the attack. "
You (and other anti-GM's) do this thing where you frame human activity as somehow *outside* nature - that humans and nature are engaged in some kind of conflict.
This is, to be blunt, completely asinine. Humans are 100% part of nature - nothing we do is 'unnatural.'
So when you say something like "Mother Nature goes on the attack" I realize you're still hook, line, and sinker in the anti-science crew.
That makes you the opposite if intelligent.
Almost every single paragraph in your first link contains a lie.
You second link includes whoppers like:
"While there is broad consensus on climate science, there is anything but on many aspects of GE science."
Wishful thinking at best.
I don't know why this topic creates such a willingness to be ignorant, uninformed, etc. Maybe it's because almost everyone in the is unable to pass a high-school biology test - we think all this stuff is magic or something.
Very frustrating for me.
In almost each case, your links present an author who misrepresents what Lynas says/claims, then rails against that misrepresentation.
"
Mark Lynas seems to have hitched his wagon to the concept of 'increasing yields' ... and that's all well and good. I'm not against increasing yields. But I expect science to be smart enough and good enough to do it sustainably and safely, as the old 50's science promotions used to shout."
If you'd read the entire speech, he addresses this exactly.
Final note: Among my dozen of so acquaintances working in gene research, NONE of them talk about their work (or other scientists) on these terms.
Sorry - I didn't get a notification from the system that you'd added to this thread. I've started to write you a response, but a client's sudden severe illness is going to slow down that response. Given that we've had a few long-duration 'conversations', I hope you can forgive the wait.
Posted today, in reference to this thread:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/?p=10270#.UQsICUKJWRI
Post a Comment