Chief EU science adviser on GMO

Scottish microbiologist Anne Glover is the recently appointed chief science adviser to the EU. The below excerpt concerning GMO is taken from an interview that she gave last month.

She makes three major points: (1) There is a fundamental need for a profit-driven agri-business, (2) Resistance to GMO is driven by emotion rather than any kind of scientific evidence, and (3) Anti-GMO lobby groups are partially to blame for the monopoly power that they so vehemently claim to oppose.

In terms of food security and safety – where do you stand on genetically modified products and what do you think of the EU’s rather dismissive stance to GM to date? 

“In my own area of science, molecular biology, I have used the GM technology for most of my research career and very helpful it has been in generating understanding about how biological and environmental systems work. So I know the power of the technology and the regulations we adopt in order to use it are very sensible and appropriate. I can also see that healthcare and our understanding of diseases has been revolutionised. There has been an unparalleled acceleration of our knowledge generation through the use of GM, which is a fantastic thing. 

“But people in Europe are anxious about the use of GM crops or animals and I have a concern about that because I don’t see the evidence base suggesting that there is substantial risk associated with it. Indeed, you could look at North America where they have been doing an experiment on our behalf for the last 15 years by growing and eating GM crops – and I don’t see over that period of time what negative impact it has had. There is a huge body of evidence, rightly so, looking at the risk of GM. People will ask me: ‘Is there no risk in eating GM crops?’ Well, of course, I would never say that as I am a scientist. What I would say is that whatever you eat for dinner this evening, there is a risk in eating that. There is risk associated with conventional agriculture, organic agriculture, any form of agriculture. 

“Agriculture has a big impact on our environment. The act of fertilising fields reduces the microbial diversity in the soil, but we don’t think that it has any long-term effects. We think it is something we need to do. There are implications for climate change and water spoilage issues so we need to do that with care. So around GM, let us examine the evidence. It doesn’t support the restricted activity in this area that we see. 

“People may say that it is just big business that is making money out of this, but I can’t help thinking that is the job of big business. It is a capitalist system we work in – energy companies make money, transport companies make money. So do agricultural companies. I wish there was a better debate around GM, based on evidence and not emotion. And I wish we could look at risk versus reward. Some farmers say that if we introduce these particular types of GM seeds, then we are tied in to using particular chemicals to manage our crops. They don’t like that because they feel it is a monopoly to a particular company and they are uncomfortable about that.” 

But isn’t that part of the problem, these allegations that a small number of firms have a monopoly in the GM market? 

“Possibly, the reason that [monopoly power] has happened is because of all the restrictions on GM. If I was running a small seed company, it is not an area I would be getting into because I couldn’t afford to do it. The lobbyists and pressure groups have almost been responsible for it by causing this withdrawal from evidence and this acceptance of the emotional argument. It really is not fair to use terms such as ‘Frankenstein foods’. We should be a bit more cautious in Europe here. By turning our backs on the evidence, there is a question over whether we are still going to be as competitive. We need to seriously look at GM crops when we tackle to the global problem of climate change and being able to feed the population of the world. It links into food security as well and we do need to think about that.”

The face of Gabriel

Jonathan Haid's comments on the spiritual nature of warfare reminded me of a passage in Captain Correli's Mandolin by Louis de Bernières. The character Mandras is something of tragic figure in the book. A simple fisherman who finds himself transformed by the horrors of war and unable to relate to the loved ones that await his return:

Once, near the Metsovon pass, in December, when it was twenty degrees below zero because there was no cloud, the Italians sent up a starshell. It exploded in a cascade of brilliant blue light against the face of the full moon, and the sparks drifted to earth in slow motion like the souls of reluctant angels. As that small magnesium sun hovered and blazed, the black pines stepped out of their modest shadows as though previously they had been veiled like virgins but had now decided to be seen as they are in heaven. The drifts of snow pulsed with the incandescence of the absolute chastity of ice, a mortar coughed disconsolately, and an owl whooped. For the first time in my life I shivered physically from something other than the cold; the world had sloughed away its skin and revealed itself as energy and light. 

It is my wish to get well so that I can go back to the lines and experience, perhaps for only one more time, that immaculate moment when I saw the face of Gabriel in an instrument of war. 

Quite beautiful.

Great TED talk on the evolutionary basis for religion

..., spirituality and co-operation by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. My economist self was particularly interested in his thoughts on free-riding. The rest of me was particularly interested in the discussion as a whole.



It's curious to reflect on the things that give meaning and purpose to our lives. On that note, I've often wondered whether the appeal of atheism would diminish if there were no believers to convince otherwise?

UPDATE: Haidt has just published a new book that is getting rave reviews.

Housekeeping

Some of you may have noticed that I've changed the previous post -- on Invisible Children and James Inhofe -- around a bit since it was first published. I wrote it up in quite a rush and, looking over it today, realised that my motivations were perhaps a bit cryptic. Hopefully it reads a bit better now.

Revisiting and tweaking old posts on this blog is an occasional habit of mine. I've never tried to change the fundamental meaning of any posts, or cover my tracks if someone calls me out in the comments. Rather, it's usually that I read something and think "Who wrote this terrible mess? Do they even speak English?" So, blame OCD, but I inevitably tend to think that I can improve my writing after it's already out there for the world to see.

This is frustrating because I'm a terribly slow blogger as it is, and coursework leaves very little time for anything else. I don't know how other people doing graduate studies manage to keep up regular blogging activity with the workload. I suspect that the answer will reflect unfavourably on my mental faculties, so probably best not dwell on that issue...

The real reason to be wary of Kony 2012

With the internet abuzz about Invisible Children's "Kony 2012" viral campaign, it was predictable that there would be some blow-back from critics. The most compelling criticism from my perspective is that Kony 2012 offers an extremely simplified message that is largely disconnected from the problems that presently plague Uganda.

In its own small way, I believe that such issues are laid bare by IC's vocal endorsement from James Inhofe, the Oklahoma senator who features prominently in the viral video.[*] Call me crazy, but I don't think that someone who has campaigned on the discriminatory platform of "God, gays and guns" is particularly well suited to act as spokesman for Uganda's current problems... Which -- more than the unspeakable acts of the now exiled Joseph Kony -- include massive discrimination and violence perpetrated against gay people.

Non-partisan support is something that we should almost always strive for. However, I am troubled by the fact that IC have unquestionably accepted and advertised Inhofe's endorsement, even though he has a record of overt bigotry. I suggest that IC might want to think a little more critically about the signals that they are sending to the Ugandan people, given the country's struggles against rabid homophobia.

UPDATE: Well, it seems that the case against James Inhofe's moral leadership on Ugandan issues is even stronger than I first guessed. A group of evangelical US politicians and lobbyists -- Inhofe foremost among them -- have been documented as providing advice to David Bahati, and implicitly inspiring him to introduce Uganda's infamous anti-Homosexual Bill (aka "Kill the Gays Bill") that I linked to above. Disturbing stuff.

[*] I've previously discussed Inhofe here if you are interested. Notably, his demanding role as the US Senate's climate change denier-in-chief... a hotly contested title if ever there was one. (A sadly amusing postscript to that saga here.)

===

Disclaimer -- I wrote this post, and especially the title, with my tongue pressed angrily against my cheek. Joseph Kony undoubtedly deserves to face justice for his crimes. If this Kony 2012 campaign achieves nothing else, it's still good to know that millions of people around the world have now learnt who he is and understand the nature of his barbarism. Still, I think that this illustrates how simplified messages can distract from the real issues in development; a sadly recurring theme in field. For a nice, short summary, see Chris Blattman.

Cover Thursdays - James Morrison edition

When James Morrison first came on to the scene, I was distinctly of the "meh" opinion. His debut album Undiscovered was everywhere I looked and, for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why. On the mediocre side of average IMHO.

Bear in mind that a) I was living in London at the time, and b) the Brits have a singular ability to foster contempt among non-Brits for local artists and sportsmen as a result of their incessant patriotic promotion.[*]

That's not to say that this was bad period for me on the musical front. The music scene in London is pretty amazing and I was left almost frantic with the notion that I could see a superb live act every other night. (Coming from South Africa, this was like being on another planet...) The general Brit "sound" around that time was also pretty great, if I think back: The Fratellis, Editors, Bloc Party, Arctic Monkeys, Muse, Amy Winehouse, Kasabian, Kooks, Razorlight, etc etc

But not James Morrison, whom seemed to be empty pop masquerading as thoughtful troubadour... and he hasn't done much to grow on me since. Having said that, while I don't normally like the music he makes, I do recognize that Morrison has a pretty unique voice with some real soulful quality to it.[**] In other words, he's exactly the type of candidate that can produce a good cover.

I still have mixed feelings about including him here, among the -- coveted! -- ranks of Cover Thursdays alumni at Stickman's Corral. However, hopefully you'll enjoy these two tracks that I've selected for your listening pleasure this fine Thursday. Both are acoustic numbers that offer Morrison a platform to showcase his smokey pipes and perhaps win us naysayers over...

1) "Man In The Mirror", originally by a certain Michael Jackson:

2) "Gangster's Gangsta's Paradise", originally by two-hit wonder, Coolio:




Verdict?
Yes, no, maybe?

---

[*] Tennis being an obvious "beneficiary" of this counterproductive approach. Poor ol' Tim Henman never stood a chance (even if he had been born with a personality). Andy Murray was pretty much goosed from the get go as well (even if he hadn't been born with a cactus lodged in his colon).

[**] Full disclosure: I did quite enjoy his last single, "I won't let you go". This acoustic version is certainly impressive and, if the music doesn't grab you, then the facial expressions just might do it...

We'll go no more a roving

In the rapidly fading twilight that is my 20s, please indulge me.

~ 

So, we'll go no more a roving

So late into the night,

Though the heart be still as loving,

And the moon be still as bright. 

For the sword outwears its sheath,

And the soul wears out the breast,

And the heart must pause to breathe,

And love itself have rest. 

Though the night was made for loving,

And the day returns too soon,

Yet we'll go no more a roving

By the light of the moon.

~ 

Byron was 29 when he composed the above [heavy-handed hint, heavy-handed nudge - Ed.], but died a mere seven years later. Impossibly romantic to the end, I imagine.

Lord Byron. G-G to his mates.

PS - In truth, I'm not actually feeling very dramatic about reaching the 30s. And if this post was a bit too serious for your liking, then there's always last year.

Kings of Convenience - Me in You

If for no other reason than my apartment gets some camera time.[*]

Some very mellow Sunday night listening with suitably serene Scandinavian scenes.




[*] I'm basically famous now.

Science and distortion

Below is a video of the late climate scientist, Stephen Schneider. Please watch it and tell me that scientists are the ones trying to polarize this debate and selectively feed us alarmist harbingers of doom. Specifically note Schneider's comment at the 3:35 mark on the false dichotomies, "end of the world" and "good for you".

I see (environmental) economists as making meaningful contributions to this project as well. Cutting through the extreme and distortionist views, so that we can finally settle on some sensible solutions. At times that seems too much to hope for, but every skeptic could do with an optimistic streak...



UPDATE: From 6:04, Schneider provides a great summary of the role that risk management plays in this whole climate debate. I'd refer readers to this post, where I make very similar observations on risk probabilities and insurance decisions.

Quote of the day - Let it stand

At the beginning of last year, I announced a (mostly) informal book challenge that I'm partaking in. The goal of which is to complete six carefully selected "epics" before my friend and rival literatus, Bloomsboy[*].

Truth to be told, I'm faring pretty disappointingly on that score. Course work and related uni readings have taken over my life. What little spare time I now have is normally spent trolling the internet perusing something a shade lighter and, well, shorter.

My one consolation in all this is that -- according to my sources[**] -- his own progress has been equally unimpressive. Since he allegedly works for a publishing firm, I don't see what his excuse is...

At any rate, it was Bloomsboy who told me a great anecdote not too long ago about one of the five authors in our mandatory set, James Joyce. It concerns his relationship with protégé and Waiting for Godot playwright, Samuel Beckett, at the time when failing eyesight had left him dictating his words to others:

Beckett's mind had a subtlety and strangeness that attracted Joyce as it attracted, in another way, his daughter. [...]Once or twice he dictated a bit of Finnegans Wake to Beckett, though dictation did not work very well for him; in the middle of one such session there was a knock at the door which Beckett didn't hear. Joyce said, `Come in,' and Beckett wrote it down. Afterwards he read back what he had written and Joyce said, `What's that "Come in"?' 'Yes, you said that,' said Beckett. Joyce thought for a moment, then said, `Let it stand.' He was quite willing to accept coincidence as his collaborator.

Richard Ellmann, James Joyce (New York, 1959), pp. 661-662.

In its own small way, the above passage goes some way towards explaining the incomprehensibility of Finnegans Wake... Perhaps making it a bit more palatable at the same time.

---

[*] Self-styled in a moment of apparent irony.
[**] i.e. Bloomsboy.