If only we could use GM crops without handing control of the food supply to hostile corporations. It's only the irrational fear of GM that is strong enough to stand up to their lobbying - with the unfortunate side-effect of stopping all GM crops as well. But without that fear, the same misaligned incentives that result in tractor DRM and novel-length EULAs will be written into the DNA of the plants we need to live, while competitive forces will bankrupt those that stick with traditional seeds.
The fear is not inherently irrational either. Its clearly a very powerful field on the confoundingly complicated biological domain, and with more power and complexity comes greater potential for serious error. It can be fair to disagree about the safety and wisdom of various GM applications, but the charge that it is all irrational is really just divisive rhetoric.
I don't approve of novel GM in agriculture, I encourage naturalistic development for mass production in the environment and especially the materials we routinely put into our body. Poor nutrition is caused by poor politics, culture and economics over and above all of the existing foods which are already available to solve it.
I think GM will best be limited to acute medical challenges and containable research and emergency uses, until we have actually developed a strong command of diseases and natural (evolved) systems. Our agriculture should be as contingent as possible with natural history and existing species in our already very disturbed sphere of ecology.
That's true - while I mostly don't buy the 'frankenfood' scare, I worry about the dangers to the ecosystem. For example a GM crop that is fungus/insect resistant, but the resistance is due to a herbicide/pesticide it was engineered to synthesize, that is later found to harm some key species (the way neonicotinoids were found to harm bees). Only recalling it will be much more difficult, especially if the genes spread to other species (such as by horizontal gene transfer). All the while the corporation selling the crop has every incentive to try to hide the ill effects.
I question why doesn't some amoeba just maximize its fitness and so turn into effectively a bioweapon that eats all the mammals on the planet? It has some sort of intelligence that restrains it from wiping out its food source? I do wish for Genetic Science and all relevant fields to take that mystery very seriously and solve it securely before its confident to mass replicate novel species in the huge system. Species which have evolved somehow over ages to not be routinely in massive flux between champion species. The microbial world could liquidate swathes of the phylogenetic tree repeatedly, if all it needs is a chance mutation to create a new alpha species. What stops an experimental GMO containing such an over-competitive mutation, or a precursor to such?
There is so much yet not known or controllable in microbiology, it does worry me that the prevailing attitude is so confident with the little that is known and doable. Its alarmist and uncertain, but so is the foresight that significantly increasing ghgs through the whole atmosphere is too dangerous, or filling the sea with more plastic waste than there are fish left in it is not worth the price and risks. Hopefuly culture is on the verge of accepting these concerns have had rational basis. It needn't result in the end of modernity, but in the appreciation and protection of some older things.
> Why doesn't some amoeba just maximize its fitness and so turn into effectively a bioweapon that eats all the mammals on the planet?
Evolution takes a long time. It's not totally unfair to describe humans as that amoeba, now approaching the nightmare scenario of consuming almost everything on earth.
Part of the answer is that mammals are three to seven orders of magnitude larger than amoeba. That comes with some advantages! Immune systems are super complicated, and can leverage the resources of a vast cooperating superorganism of cells.
That sort of thing has happened before though. Oxygen was originally a pollutant that caused the extinction of most species on the planet. This is sometimes called the Oxygen Holocaust (more commonly, the Great Oxidation Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event).
Its not a great answer because despite superior size and having immune systems, microbial life is still routinely deadly, just not too often so deadly to cause extinctions. I have read microbiologists puzzles over for example, what mechanisms 'evolves' strains of flu viruses between periods of relative dormancy and deadly flare up.
That oxidation event represents one major collapse on an ancient scale, but did not owe to a species over-predating others, which Im considering here as a more pervasive risk for species 'dynamics' than pollution/poisoning.
I find no firm answer to these concerns. We dont know that species genetic information has not evolved to avoid over-competitiveness, configurations that could be broken by non-evolved modifications, mass reproductions and releases into the system. Its not a matter which can be settled by current insights, so its somewhat plausibly disguarded as fear and uncertainty. But it might even be the case that what genetics may naturally evolve are naturally confined to modest competitiveness by a property of the yet mysterious steps which enable life to evolve - because we don't even know in what circumstance life evolves. Plenty of theories but no one has ever observed life assembling and evolving from lifelessness, or even modelled a viable sequence illustrating it, and not from lacking of trying for the great achievement and accolades that would bring. Its such an amazing scientific subject, the developed science is amazing too but not nearly so much as its subject matter - biological complexity and remaining mysteries. Its worth treating with special care and humility of some kind.
The fact that we can’t explain the exact steps from stones to microorganisms is no reason to start showing “humility” to intelligent design - agnostic respect to that idea on an equal footing to all others is more than sufficient.
The prospect of intelligent creators is irrelevant here as if they are present they are unseen. What can be partially made out is the broad path of evolution which has actually somehow arrived by its own properties on intelligence in animals - and also appearances of intelligent/cooperative etc. relationships between species. Many different kinds of relationships over kinds of chemistry and activity are present, which themselves may evolve and may have evolved over and throughout species.
The presumptive outlook is that all of the simple and complex evolutionary processes are in sum and product - assuredly mundane, stochastic, resilient to any accidental discord which could be caused by humans bodging their evolved configurations and then non-competitively reproducing trillions of carriers and spreading and maintaining them across the globe with no means to ever recall the version. That's GM agriculture described 'on an equal footing' with the products of natural history.
One aspect is the speed of evolution - as one species evolves, its competitors evolve just as much, making it difficult to dominate too much. This is a limitation that GM does not share - it can make genetic leaps in a few years that would be vanishingly unlikely to occur naturally, or would take millions of years. Other species could not keep up.
To illustrate with the previous example, insects evolve resistance to the chemical countermeasures that plants evolve. But give those countermeasures a GM kick, and insects won't be able to keep up. I'm sure eventually they would evolve something, but there could still be a huge crash in their population before that happens.
Humans have been genetically modifying their food since the beginning of agriculture. Fear based on the particular modification technique used is completely irrational.
As Boeing has shown that only stays true as long as nobody games the regulations against flying death traps. Planes are safe because we require them to be safe, not because tin cans traveling miles above ground are inherently safe. I will take my chances on foot over a 737 MAX with its suicidal MCAS.
That is silly. Imagine that the genes were transferred via some toxic mould that transfers DNA but that was extremely hard to remove after the procedure. Of course the procedure matters
I’ve been reading a sci fi book called the windup girl. The setting is a future where agri-tech companies and bioweapons proliferated until some conflict happened that led to almost all crops on earth being wiped out, and only innovative new produce could survive the engineered diseases, so the agri-tech companies have incredible power since the world depends on them for its survival.
I would like to think it’s unlikely to really happen, but I’ve read news in the last 2 years about the USA researching tech that could lead one day to these types of scenarios[1]. There was also agent orange etc in Vietnam, showing a willingness to use such tech even in less serious wars (eg, compared to ones that endanger your cities).
That's also roughly the backstory of Niander Wallace in Blade Runner 2049. He creates synthetic farming methods to avert a global famine, which then gives him the clout to get the ban on replicants overturned.
Windup Girl came out in 2009, perhaps some inspiration was acquired for BR2049...
That reminds me of the time Monsanto bought Blackwater.
(It's unclear to me whether they actually did, though I do remember it being reported. Online, reports are all over the place, with Monsanto denying it, others claiming it's true, and some sources claiming Monsanto merely hired Blackwater or bought only the intelligence arm of Blackwater under a different name. But it seems likely there's some relationship at least.)
The Federal Government could purchase the patents for GM crops after they've been developed and proven to be safe. Then make the crop freely available.
You'd probably want some kind of purchase agreement where the crop developer gets annual payments based on how much the crop is used over a period of time.
With the newer DNA editing tools becoming available more widely, perhaps there can be a "Free and Open Source Genetics" movement that will curtail the power of corporations to control genetic modification.
In theory they are better, but in practice “what makes them the most money” is often “what is best for the people” and governments and elected officials are often inept or corrupt. This doesn’t apply for every government or corporation on every issue, so we need to be nuanced in who we entrust which issues to. Specifically we want to look at the severity of the issue, the incentives, and the corruption and the competence of the government in question.
Because once people are democratically elected or appointed, they no longer are beholden to the people. Once in power, they are free to do whatever they want, which history shows, tends to be pretty self-serving.
It should be. Governments are supposed to represent the people and be accountable to them. Corporations are far too often only accountable to their shareholders. Reality is often different, of course.
I wasn't saying it was. Merely observing that the government isn't a popular alternative either. Note that this isn't even my valuation--anti-corporatists tend to very strongly dislike both corporations and (the U.S.) government. Of course no political movement is entirely homogenous, so there are probably people who distrust corporations but love the government.
I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners.
Also it should be noted, "government ownership of patents" means that the patents are unenforcable. The government is forbidden by law from charging licensing fees for its IP, so government ownership of patents is inherently open-sourcing them.
While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
> I definitely wouldn't say that government is always trustworthy, but having the food supply controlled by a democratically operated nonprofit entity with a clear interest in everyone's wellbeing is obviously better than having the food supply controlled by a single for-profit entity with no stake in the wellbeing of employees or customers except insomuch as it provides profit for its owners.
I don't think this argument is very convincing. For example, why limit the application of this rationale to food supply? Why trust the market (i.e., corporations) with _anything_. Is our government strictly superior to the market in all cases, or does the market have some strengths that the government lacks? If so, why are those strengths the wrong tradeoff for this case in particular but perhaps not for others? Without more nuance, this argument could support socialism (as in "the government completely owns production", not the capitalism-friendly democratic socialism).
Another issue is that we're not talking about complete ownership of the food supply, but only temporary ownership (i.e., patents have a lifetime) over individual food products that are individually subject to competition and regulation.
> While Monsanto owns the patents, they can legally wreck anyone who attempts to violate them. If the government owns the patents, "violation" doesn't exist because anyone can use them freely.
Patent enforcement is a feature, not a bug. We want people to invest in making food production more sustainable, so we need incentives. Notably, patents _do_ expire, so Monsato's (or whomever) risk is rewarded and society benefits. If the enforcement is too strict or the patents too long, we can adjust those knobs accordingly. No need smash the system because the knobs aren't tuned properly.
This is true if we make all sorts of ideal case assumptions. Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt. In the end I prefer corporations innovating in "optional" items like iphones, tvs and hamburgers. We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff. I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire.
> Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt.
I'm not familiar with this. Genuinely didn't know it was an issue.
> We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff.
Yeah, I'm 100% on board so far.
> I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire.
This is where you lose me. What's the threat model? Monsanto releases a food product that is so good that they capture the entire food market in some way that anti-trust regulators aren't able to regulate and then jack up the price, all before the patent expires? Presumably yours isn't a food safety concern because you're advocating for lowering the bar to GMO technology. This sentence sounds like FUD; help me understand why I'm mistaken.
You are correct in that my concerns are not primarily food safety although still a concern. I am more interested in food security. When whole countries are in the thrall of companies like Bayer/Monsanto because their farmers have become dependent on these companies' seeds partly due to 'well-meaning' initiatives like golden rice can feed millions, thats where i say 'hol up'
Patents are very important for wealth creation. Investors need returns on their investment, otherwise they will not make investments in the research and development necessary to develop the product.
Without the limited time monopoly created by patents, investment cannot be recuperated and there will be no funds available for creating and productizing innovation.
One of the slightly unfortunate things about golden rice (and there are quite a lot of them) is that the state funding it was developed with required them to patent it and sell the patent to the private sector. Though not patenting it would've been of limited help due to the thicket of patents covering the technologies they used.
I think the organization funding it (which if I recall correctly was the EU) wanted the university research they were funding to turn into commercial products, and so set a blanket rule requring patenting and attempts at commercial licensing. This is a fairly common view on government-funded research these days unfortunately. There was a published report by the main researcher somewhere with more details.
Well, that was a stupid idea, then. Instead of selling the patents of public research to private monopolies, they should have made them available to everybody.
I wonder if something like the Kickstarter model could be applied to this sort of research.
Novel investment models and the increased accessibility of bioengineering technologies to individuals have the potential to revolutionize the field in the future.
Witness the blossoming fields of biohacking and citizen science.
The fruits of individual, independent experimentation and development may get out in to the wild, if they haven't already, and no patent is likely to stop them.
There are plenty of industries where people invest without a government granted monopoly. If they don't want to invest without this, maybe they shouldn't.
Meanwhile I am under the impression that public funding works better for these sorts of things anyway. So they will pay in their taxes and it will serve the public good.
