A healthy public debate is emerging over the revolutionary new genetic engineering tool known as CRISPR. Challenging anti-GMO dogma, it’s incredibly precise and does not involve the introduction of so-called ‘foreign genes.’ But anti-biotechnology activists raise new ‘precautionary’ alarms. Are they based in science?
Let’s put political correctness aside: World class athletic ability is in the genes, and the success of Jamaican sprinting just underscores the obvious.
Philip Seddon, zoologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand, addresses the fears of regenerating species as a tactic in wildlife conservation. De-extinction could be a boon for preserving threatened species he says, protecting wildlife well into the future.
The recent death of 111 year old Alexander Imich highlighted the difficulties in keeping track of the world’s oldest people, and why it matters.
Mike Adams, who advocates the murder of those who believe GM technology can play a constructive role in food and farming, is not an outlier in the anti-GMO movement…he is as mainstream as the Institute for Responsible Technology, Center for Food Safety, and sadly, even some environmental publications like Mother Jones. Their positions are grounded in ideology rather than science. That’s the scandal.
Genome editing, a powerful technology that allows researchers to make minute changes to crops with pinpoint accuracy, could be stifled if the European Commission lumps it together with conventional GM technology that faces significant regulatory barriers, scientists warn.
Mike Adams, self-styled ‘Health Ranger’ behind what’s called the world’s #1 anti-science website, NaturalNews, has issued a call to action: for anti-GMO activists to literally kill scientists and journalists who support biotechnology. Is there a sane side to the anti-GM movement that will distance itself from deranged ravings and help shutdown ‘hate speech’?
India’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee okayed field trials for 15 varieties of genetically modified crops, but the decision came under fire.
Bread wheat feeds about 30 percent of the human population, and thanks to two recent major genetic research developments, it just might be the answer to feeding a hotter, drier, more populous world. These developments have left agricultural scientists excited because of the potential this brings to the table, because while good bread tastes like heaven, bread wheat’s DNA is hell to sequence and we are now very much close to be out of the seventh level.
While neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics) may have some dire potential for health problems, there’s little evidence to suggest that a neonic ban will be the silver bullet to resolve the bee crisis. “Silver bullet” thinking has already led to twisted paths to scientific controversy. On the other hand, the consequences of inaction are not pretty.