Global News Journal

‘Frankenstein’-food fears keep GMOs out of Europe

As the new European Union executive prepares to debate fresh policy proposals which might unblock the stalemate over approving genetically modified crops for feed, processing or cultivation, there are few signs that Europe’s fears over what some have termed “Frankenstein foods” are easing. 

On Friday Bulgaria’s ruling GERB party proposed a five-year moratorium on the production of genetically modified (GM) crops for scientific and commercial reasons following public outcry over a new legislation. 

Bulgaria follows in the footsteps of Austria, Germany, Hungary and France, all of whom have banned the commercial cultivation of the only GM crop (Monsanto’s MON 810 maize type) allowed to be grown in the European Union.  

Why, despite all the assurances from the scientific community and food safety authorities, do so many remain so adverse to GMOs?

The answer you often get from consumers when you ask why they don’t like GMOs is: ”You just never know” — suggesting they think there are still dangers lurking out there.

The last survey conducted by the European Union on public acceptance of GMOs,  in 2006, showed that while many had faith in biotechnology, few had an appetite for food made from genetically modified organisms. For Europeans, the perceived risk still seems to outweigh the demonstrated benefits in terms of  higher crop yields and less use of pesticides.

Recent events suggest European opinion has altered little since 2006, suggesting it could be a long time still before Europe embraces a GMO-world.

Allah, Antarctica and Ancient Inca-The best reads of 2009

When I have time to lavish on reading something other than news, I want to spend it on stories that leave me saying, “Wow!” A great read should tell readers something they don’t already know, enlighten them about the world and its people, inform them about the human condition. Readers should be moved to laughter, tears, anger, action through superb writing and extraordinary reporting.  Here are my picks for the best reads of 2009.

As Spain’s jobless lose homes, tensions mount

A packet of cigarettes is enough to cause a fight among the Spaniards and immigrants shivering in the dark outside an emergency homeless shelter in Madrid, set up for a bitter winter and depression-era unemployment. Police push past jobless Romanian and Hungarian construction workers.  ”One day this place is going to explode,” says unemployed waiter Miguel Roa, a Spaniard.

Pakistani newlyweds live in fear of honour killing

Pervez Chachar and his young wife live in the police headquarters in the Pakistani city of Karachi. Their crime? They fell in love and married without their families’ permission. In traditional rural society in Pakistan, getting married without permission is such a serious slight to the “honor” of a family or a tribe that death is seen as fitting retribution. They share a cramped room with another young couple in the same position.

from Maggie Fox:

Stimulus package does provide some jobs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 25 years into the AIDS pandemic, scientists finally have a vaccine that protects some people -- but instead of celebrating, they are going back to the drawing board.

The vaccine, a combination of two older vaccines, only lowered the infection rate by about a third after three years among 16,000 ordinary Thai volunteers. Vaccines need to be at least 50 percent effective, and usually 70 to 80 percent effective, to be useful.

Worse, no one knows why it worked.

"Additional studies are clearly needed to understand how this vaccine regimen reduced the risk of HIV infection," Dr. Eric Schoomaker, surgeon general of the U.S. Army, which helped pay for the study, told reporters.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, "We need to bring the best minds together and map the way forward."

The vaccine is a combination of Sanofi-Pasteur's ALVAC canarypox/HIV vaccine, which includes synthetic versions of three HIV genes, and the failed HIV vaccine AIDSVAX, made by a San Francisco company called VaxGen and now owned by the nonprofit Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases.

"It is likely that significant efforts will be needed to fully understand the study results and to appreciate how they will inform the next steps to develop and deliver a safe and effective HIV vaccine," Dr. Peter Kim, president of Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement.

from UK News:

Testing the limits of animal lab experiments

A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down's Syndrome? Dogs with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical research.

The Academy of Medical Sciences has launched a study to look at the use of animals containing human material in scientific research.

Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already created rhesus macaque monkeys that have a human form of the Huntingdon's gene so they can investigate how the disease develops; and mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the effects of new drugs.

But scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world -- raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to push boundaries.

Religious groups are among those that are uneasy about the trend. One Catholic cardinal, Keith O'Brien of Edinburgh, has branded such work "Frankenstein science."

Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University is chairman of a 14-member group looking into the issue.

He says: "Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are human? Probably not. But if it can speak? If it can think? Or if it is conscious in a human way? Then we're in a completely different ballpark."

from FaithWorld:

Is a moral instinct the source of our noble thoughts?

Until not too long ago, most people believed human morality was based on scripture, culture or reason. Some stressed only one of those sources, others mixed all three. None would have thought to include biology. With the progress of neuroscientific research in recent years, though, a growing number of psychologists, biologists and philosophers have begun to see the brain as the base of our moral views. Noble ideas such as compassion, altruism, empathy and trust, they say, are really evolutionary adaptations that are now fixed in our brains. Our moral rules are actually instinctive responses that we express in rational terms when we have to justify them.

Thanks to a flurry of popular articles, scientists have joined the ranks of those seen to be qualified to speak about morality, according to anthropologist Mark Robinson, a Princeton Ph.D student who discussed this trend at the University of Pennsylvania's Neuroscience Boot Camp. "In our current scientific society, where do people go to for the truth about human reality?" he asked. "It used to be you might read a philosophy paper or consult a theologian. But now there seems to be a common public sense that the authority over what morality is can be found by neuroscientists or scientists."

This change has come over the past decade as brain scan images began to reveal which areas of the brain react when a person grapples with a moral problem. They showed activity not only in the prefrontal cortex, where much of our rational thought is processed, but also in areas known to handle emotion and conflicts between brain areas. Such insights cast doubt on long-standing assumptions about reason or religion driving our moral views. "A few theorists have even begun to claim that that the emotions are in fact in charge of the temple of morality and that moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as the high priest," University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt, one of the leading theorists in this field, has written.

Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory argues that morality is based on five concepts that evolved in all cultures: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authorty/respect and purity/sanctity. Those concepts have real-life consequences, he says -- political liberals and conservatives disagree so much on so-called "culture war issues" because liberals base their moral views on the first two concepts while conservatives use all five. Other theorists such as Marc Hauser of Harvard and John Mikhail of Georgetown suggest humans have a universal moral grammar akin to the universal grammar that linguist Noam Chomsky claims underlies all the world's languages.

For more on these ideas, see review articles such as "The Moral Instinct" (Stephen Pinker, New York Times), "Do The Right Thing" (Rebecca Saxe, Boston Review), "The Emerging Moral Psychology" (Dan Jones, Prospect), "The Roots of Morality" (Greg Miller, Science) and "The End of Philosophy" (David Brooks, New York Times). Hat-tip to fellow boot camper Tamar Gendler for pointing them out.

Does this mean that public opinion will turn away from seeing reason or religion as the bases for morality, in favor of the brain? Robinson doubts that. "I don't know that they will shift to a completely neurobiological view of morality (and) I don't think this is a fundamental shift away from religion. But it will mean that religion will have to come to terms with the public's perception.

"I think there will be a greater acceptance of biology as an accepted domain within which to ask certain types of questions. That isn't to say that people will understand morality completely differently in the future, or won't have any morality. But they will at least know that (neuroscience) is another domain to go to for answers. The question of authority is a big one. Who is the ultimate authority on these issues about the fundamental nature of human morality?"

from FaithWorld:

Beware brain scientists bearing gifts (gee-whiz journalists too…)

Knowing what not to report is just as important for journalists as knowing what to write. We're inundated with handouts about some pioneering new scientific research or insightful new book. Should we write about it? It's refreshing to hear experts who can dazzle you with their work but warn against falling for any hype about it. This "let's not overdo it" approach has been a recurrent theme in the Neuroscience Boot Camp I'm attending at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Andrew Newberg's "no God spot" message to boot campers has already been noted here on FaithWorld. Other lecturers added similar reality checks to their presentations. Cognitive science has already begun to influence religion studies (as John Teehan explained here) and we're bound to hear more in the future about what neuroscientific research has to say about faith, morals, altruism and other issues of interest to readers of this blog. Much of this will be fascinating. But before the next "gee-whiz" report comes out, here's the advice the neuroscientists are giving us about speculative claims based on brain research.

After two days of explaining fMRI brain scanning, the sexiest procedure in current neurological research, Geoff Aguirre poured cold water on some of the exaggerated conclusions that researchers or journalists draw from it. When shown brain scan images, he said, "people immediately start thinking about trying to catch terrorists and being able to screen people as they pass through metal detectors." This is "science fiction, science fantasy," he said, but it comes up regularly. Why? Aguirre, who is an M.D and assistant professor of neurology at Penn, listed several reasons:

• scientific awesomeness -- "This is an incredible technology. Neuroimaging is not phrenology. It really is a scientific discipline that has reproducible results that makes valuable predictions that explain larges areas of cognition and cognitive neuroscience that previously had been inaccessible."
• image properties -- "There's definitely an esthetic in the presentation of this data. People see this as a natural aspect of the brain, not the result of tests. Some groups made a very wise investment in the display technology for how neuroimaging results were reported. Those were the images that got displayed on the covers of the top scientific journals and made a splash."
• thresholding -- The brain images leave out data outside the main focus. "This contributes to the overly localised view of brain function. So we say, 'ah this is the spot for love' or whatever, because it's all that we see."
• overinference -- "It's very easy to believe a lot of things about these images that might not be true... It's also implied that when you've found activisation in a region, you've found the region 'for' something. But what does that mean?"
• chicken versus egg problem -- "Just because you find a difference between groups in some brain imaging measure does not mean that structural difference was genetically determined." But the brain also develops according to its owner's environment and experience, so this is too narrow a focus.
• lurking Cartesian dualism -- "In the way we think about people's actions and describe the effect of diseases or drugs, there is frequently a lurking dualism there. We say, 'oh it wasn't his fault, his brain did that.' Well, who else could it have been? Where else could those thoughts and feeling or plans have come from, except in the brain? This idea that the brain and the mind are separate is part of what makes these images so remarkable. Wow look! Here's a part of the brain that's more active when you're feeling romantic love or not! That's just astounding to folks who would have thought romantic love was outside the brain, in the heart or the soul and far away." (Photo: Near infrared spectroscopy imaging slide/GK Aguirre)
• illusion of inferential proximity -- "It doesn't automatically follow that a brain imaging technology is going to give you greater inferential leverage on a question than just talking to somebody. There's an illusion that somehow you're getting much closer to the behavior you want to measure, just because you're measuring a brain image. That might not be the case."
• ease of imaging -- Many hospitals have brain scanners and researchers can use them and free imaging software to create impressive images. "If you have an internet connection and a scanner, you can be a cognitive neuroscientist and publish a paper. Lots of the variance in the lousy scientific papers over these years can be explained this way. What will come out will be a well-formed brain image that will give the impression you must be a very good scientist because you created something that looks very polished."

Aguirre said that brain scans might be able to identify pedophiles by showing they are excited by pictures of children. "Does having that response to seeing kids in underwear lead to an increased risk of you actually going out and molesting kids?" he asked. "It could be the case that this population of people now divides into two subgroups, one that can control that impulse and one that cannot." It would be hard to base a policy on who to put in jail on the basis of such brain images, he said.

Another example would be a study into people who lose their temper. "So I do a study of people who are enraged and can find that activity within the right insula is associated with a sense of rage. I have explained the sense of rage," he said. "But since we all strongly suspected that the sense of rage was derived from events taking place in our nervous system, what have we learned?" The study could say what happens in the brain during rage but still not explain why the person flew off the handle.

NASA finally admits…

NASA officials admit that Hollywood really is behind the video images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepping onto the surface of the moon 40 years ago this month. Well, the new video, that is. The new, and improved, digitally-enhanced-so-that-you-can-actually-see-something video. The old video — well, they lost that. Erased it to save money. But it’s OK because the new images are way better.

Click here to see the videos.

There is also some cool audio:

1. As the crew members complete their first orbit of Earth after launch, they talk about the beauty of the planet below [Play]

2. The crew members debate the color of the moon before, and after, they fire Columbia\’s engines to enter lunar orbit [Play]

3. After entering lunar orbit, the crew members are amazed at the lunar terrain as they fly 60 miles above the back side of the moon and await Earthrise and to resume communications with Mission Control [Play]