Activism and the Beauty of Science

It isn’t correct because these drugs will not help to get rid of this issue, but now they can have the medications delivered to their doorsteps – safely, discretely and at much lower prices compared to their order viagra cheap own local pharmacies. buy viagra Make moves to adapt to erectile brokenness – and recover your sexual coexistence on track. You can enjoy the sexual ecstasy for about 36 hours & thus they must be considered 1 buying levitra in canada hour before getting indulged into foreplay. If this problem is faced low price levitra on temporary basis, then it is not a cause of concern.
In January this year, Mark Lynas gave an address to the Oxford Farming Conference. Lynas had been a campaigner against genetically modified crop plants (GMO’s). He was involved in successfully persuading Europe to ban these crops and, although Europe is beginning to change, they are now far behind from where they would have been if activists like Lynas had not portrayed GMO’s as evil and having serious environmental and human consequences. He was also involved in the destruction of trial GM crops being grown by farmers in England, ruining the accumulation of data on the potential benefits of these crops. Most importantly, fears of GMO’s prevented US corn from being distributed in African countries where people were actually starving. There has also been a failure to commercially develop rice with high levels of beta carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, which could have prevented blindness and death of millions of children in the third world.

In his lecture last January, Lynas apologized for his impact. He said that he had discovered the science behind GMO’s and, when he did, he realized he was wrong. One cannot but admire his honesty, courage and genuine remorse for his antagonism towards GM crops. He apologized for his actions and even visited some of the farmers whose crops he had destroyed. He is now an advocate for GM technologies, a complete reversal of his earlier position.

“Debate and argument is the true basis of science…”

However, this leaves me with a problem. The information on the benefits of these new crops had been available for a considerable time during which Lynas was opposing them and he should have been aware of it. Transgenic plants had first been engineered in the mid-1980’s but commercial crop varieties were not introduced until 1996. A great deal of data on their safety had already been accumulated. As they were introduced, they were closely monitored and GM crops still go through the most rigorous assessment of any commercial crop variety. In fact, the high cost of these assessments have made it almost impossible for smaller companies to develop and market them, resulting in an almost monopolistic position for large companies, the opposite from what anti-GM campaigners like Lynas desired.

My biggest problem, however, is that organizations, like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Suzuki Foundation do not wish to know the truth behind the science that Mark Lynas now embraces. Debate and argument is the true basis of science so I have no problem with the criticism of sceptics as long as their criticism is based on an understanding of the science. Many years ago, when I was a professor, a graduate student asked me “Do you and Dr. Canvin hate each other”. “No we are very close friends” I replied. “But you are always arguing with each other” he responded. My heroes of biochemistry were invariable sceptics of the scientific dogma of the times. Scientists like Peter Michelle who changed the way we think about energy in cells. Hans Krebs, who had the audacity to suggest that some biochemical pathways actually go in circles, Paul Boyer, who at first opposed Mitchell’s ideas but then accepted them and proposed a radical idea of his own involving molecules within cells spinning around like little motors. All these scientists challenged the scientific dogma of the times but eventually were awarded Nobel prizes. Most importantly, however, they understood the science and argued from a solid scientific base.

Friends of the Earth et al…

In 2008, I did a media tour in London and was invited to appear on a BBC radio morning show hosted by John Humphreys.  A spokesperson from “Friends of the Earth” also agreed to be on the show with me but at the last minute decided not to attend. I, therefore, missed the opportunity to explain to her the basis of our work on plants modified to be drought tolerant by changing the activity of a single gene. I also made a presentation to the science writers of the major newspapers in the UK. From this, the Guardian, which had been opposed to GM crops, wrote an excellent online review of my presentation. To present a balanced point of view, their science writer asked for comments from Friends of the Earth. They said that “everyone knew that drought resistance required more than one gene so this work could not be correct”. They must not have known that the Green Revolution that changed agriculture during the second half of the 20^th century also involved a single gene change. I contacted the Friends of the Earth and told them that our research had been published in major, peer reviewed journals and offered to send copies. I also offered to talk to them. I never heard back. They did not want to know.

The same thing happened in Canada with David Suzuki, a well known TV science commentator, who had spoken out against GM crops. I had met him several times when I was a professor. Suzuki had, at one time, been a successful geneticist at the University of British Columbia working on the genetics of the fruit fly. He was very effective in presenting science both at UBC and to the general public and left the university to do this full-time. I wrote to him and asked him why he was opposed to GM crops. He replied that the genomes of plants were complex and it was dangerous to modify them in this way. I asked if he could be more precise and I suggested some proposals that had been made by other opponents. He responded by saying that now I was the CEO of a company and not a professor, I was only interested in promoting my company. I then offered to travel to Vancouver at my own expense to present a seminar at the Suzuki Foundation where we could discuss this issue face to face. He wrote and told me he was not interested. On a visit to Kingston, I asked Suzuki if he would come to our lab and talk to all the people who worked there. He said he was too busy.

A few years ago, an article very critical of GMO’s appeared in the student newspaper at Queen’s University from the student members of Greenpeace. To my surprise they agreed to meet with me, but when we met, the person who actually wrote the article announced he was ill and was not there. The others had no idea about DNA or plant biology so they were given an impromptu lecture on these topics.

The activists who oppose GMO’s are not interested in the science. They are opposed to large companies, especially Monsanto, being the force behind the industrialization of agriculture. However, with the mechanization of agriculture and the continued introduction of new crop varieties, we have seen incredible increases in crop yields per acre. For example, yields of corn in the US mid-west increased from 30 to almost 200 bushels per acre between 1930 and now. With the increase in world population to over 7 billion now and possibly over 9 billion by 2050 we will have to continue to increase yields per acre or destroy more natural habitat.

I live outside Kingston, Ontario, in an old farm house on 27 acres of the original farm. The land is poor with bedrock visible in many places. This farm and many others were abandoned about 50 years ago because they could not compete with more productive farms on better soil. My wife and I are allowing the land to revert to its natural state like other former farms in this area. Eastern Ontario was once a magnificent white pine forest that was cleared for farmland by the early settlers and the timber shipped to Britain. The white pines are now returning along with the animals and plants that used to live here. It is exciting and rewarding to watch. Ultimately, modern agriculture with its high yields per acre have made this possible.

When activists attempt to influence the public and governments they must always do this with a clear understanding of all the scientific information that is available. They must always consider opposing views and take them into account. Like Lynas, they may find they are wrong. Also, they cannot assume that just because large corporations are involved, it must have problems and be bad for the environment or of the well being of the public at large. At its best, science involves disagreement and dispute that is resolved by interaction and collaboration between the opposing parties. This is the beauty of science. To be able to disagree but retain respect for ones colleague with whom you can then work to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world is the enduring legacy of being a scientist.