Genetic manipulation

[Lude-dude]

I dunno, all the theories come from there, I know they are paranoid freaks but you gotta wonder

russians gotta be into something too, would have thought these superpowers have the resources

how far are we away from actual ninja turtles?

[cantaffordannsx]

While I agree with this, valid points can still be raised I think. People should still be able to have an opinion on it, but as you say only so long as it isn't stated as fact. There are a lot of people in my particular class that are vegan/vegetarian and anti-anything to do with animals other than worshipping and caring for them as if they are the last of their species, the very opinion-stated-as-fact attitude that they hold bores me to tears.

Couldn't agree more. Just so I'm clear - I think we all SHOULD have an opinion on these things. The danger is when it becomes more of the non-thinking anti-authority conspiracy tosh. Exactly analogous to creationism. Flat earthers saying "a pox on you and your "scientifically theory - i have a personal relationship with god"

ALso be very aware of people misusing epidemiological data to PROVE something. It can give an indicatino at best. e.g. you can plot the reduction in the number of pirates to the increase in global temperature : http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
another great source (sauce?) of scientific debating my pastafarians.

I only mentioned the (former) Syngenta thing so you know where I'm coming from. I am no Dawkins......but if you do wnat to know about sense down regulation of PPO in potato to stop cold store sweetening and your chips going brown....or waxy wheats/tracking mutations through a hexaploid system using real-time PCR I'm your man. Although the stuff I did is now Waaaaaay out of date. basically I know how to fill an eppendorf with dry ice and leave it in a colleagues lab coat. also for the sake of completeness - the low-tech validating technique I developed to show my method worked (strach expression in pollen & iodine staining + microscope) is the thing that went on to be used - I learnt most about using hammers to crack nuts.

The main reason I mentioned the opinion thing is that the genuine facts get completely drowned out amongall the voices, I think validated evidence is not at all valued in soceity. People in authority are no better if they sniff a political advantage. Not related but I think poss still interesting to you - in the EU the European parliament is a broad church. There is a sweetener called aspartame (again I work for a large food company now so you could say I am not exactly impartial). Aspartame is safe. It is the most studied food component on the planet yet this fact does not sit well with the (hijacked) 'green' agenda. EFSA looked at the sciecne over and over again, and came to the same conclusion - there is no evidence that it or its breakdown products cause any health issues at the upper levels of possible consumption. Yet Lepage is still desparately trying to rally her MEP chums to agree otherwise. It is her and her ilk that use the catch 22 i mentioned. Publish in a journal (its legitimate!!!) don't publish (it's an industry led conspiracy!!!)

The study I am referring to was conducted by Seralini. There is not room here to critique this.....
A huge amount of independent info is available via EFSA:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
Long story short - if you use rats designed to get tumours then give them something - surprise! they develop tumours.

EFSA has an enforced (painfully so) transparency agenda, becuase they -being the owners of the facts driving EU law, inevitably body lemonade off someone and get accused of being in the pocket of 'X' irrespective of what their conclusions are. Just for giggles - Syngenta - so pissed off with the ridiculous red tape around GMO approval, has accused EFSA of using safety criteria that are deliberately difficult to establish due to aggressive pseudo-environmentalist lobbying.

I am assuming you are currently studying - so I think the most help anyone can give you is free resources?
The paper is herehttp://research.sustainablefoodtrust.or ... -Paper.pdf - this may not be final wording but the source has a <cough> different take on things and I didn't want to give you a one sided pov [heaven forbid]

For debating things from a scientific pov, http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/f ... _maize.pdf is also a good site where they can be a bit pedantic and not always right - but I'm feeling that you are most interested in the debate from a factual view point than the fine details of how the EU legislates or who is currently saying the 35S promoter turned them into a newt. (its ok - they got better).

Forgive me if I am telling you something you already know but......once you have a good idea of what you are after if you can get a unique search term e.g. "Seralini" then if you google "seralini filetype:pdf" you will get related papers in addition to the free sources you are using. Ditto for presentations "X filetype: .ppt" etc. - has got me out of scrapes a few times as I have canibalised a few slides from others and winged it.

ALso - if you want extra brownie points. You can use the European Patent Office. A quick read of recent patent full texts in a related area can tell you a lot. A patent is an exchange of knowledge for a geography and time bound marketing exclusivity. Part of the deal there is that the applicant has an oblilgation to set the scene, explain the prior art and then explain why this in a non-obvious invention that is a departure from the prior art - so there will be many references to papers and other IP that tells the story. I guarantee no one else in your group will be mining this unique source AND it is free.
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/adva ... rch?lng=en

[cantaffordannsx]

@cantaffordannsx it's a small world I havent (officially) met with anyone from Syngneta in the UK but I have been to Syngeta at North Carolina a few times.

I never had the budget to go to the US, I was cooped up at Jealott's hill. Could do more damage that way.

Just re-read the above. mmm. I'm not really helping much I think.

I think it comes down to Mercutio's point. Scientists are terrible at engaging people.
Plus they very often have too little commericial or political savvy.
Example - amazing technolog is developed , new to the world & can do amazing things. mmmm what should the first application be....... I know....... drought resistant grass for golf courses.
then "why does everyone hate us?"

[Donald]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to actually type all that out.

Whilst it's all not completely related and actually above my level of study (or at least above what I'm expected to produce) it's all useful information. I'll have a read of if all regardless, after reading the course spec a lot of the modules I'm taking this year have assessment criteria relating to controls, conduct, etc.

Things like this:

The Authority’s final review reaffirmed its initial assessment that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design....Consequently, it is not possible to draw valid conclusions....

...are actually useful to read. We almost always have to cover something that went right, might be interesting to produce a load of waffle for them where something actually turned out to be invalid. Will give them something to think about rather than reading marking criteria and ticking key phrases.

This whole rat thing is actually a goldmine. I have a presentation to give next Monday and a lot of the info from your post will come in very handy. Thanks for that.

Forgive me if I am telling you something you already know but......once you have a good idea of what you are after if you can get a unique search term e.g. "Seralini" then if you google "seralini filetype:pdf" you will get related papers in addition to the free sources you are using. Ditto for presentations "X filetype: .ppt" etc. - has got me out of scrapes a few times as I have canibalised a few slides from others and winged it.

Also - if you want extra brownie points. You can use the European Patent Office. A quick read of recent patent full texts in a related area can tell you a lot. A patent is an exchange of knowledge for a geography and time bound marketing exclusivity. Part of the deal there is that the applicant has an oblilgation to set the scene, explain the prior art and then explain why this in a non-obvious invention that is a departure from the prior art - so there will be many references to papers and other IP that tells the story. I guarantee no one else in your group will be mining this unique source AND it is free.
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/adva ... rch?lng=en

Free resources are most excellent and I'm giving you 10 Bill & Ted points for that lot. I didn't know that Google trick and I've never even considered looking at the EPO. As you said, no one in my group will be using this. I know I probably sound arrogant but I'm almost certain I'm the only one who properly references (so including in-text as well), let alone references at all some of the time.

If I could rep you twice for that lot I would.

I think it comes down to Mercutio's point. Scientists are terrible at engaging people.
Plus they very often have too little commericial or political savvy.
Example - amazing technolog is developed , new to the world & can do amazing things. mmmm what should the first application be....... I know....... drought resistant grass for golf courses.
then "why does everyone hate us?"

This exactly. But also the media has a lot to do with it I think. News of new tech travels through the grapevine and is blown out of proportion by a journalist, then when it doesn't live up to the hype, or at least the projected hype it is deemed useless or a failure. A certain degree of 'dumbing down' I think has to be done to show that something can work, people forget about it and then it's implemented in the background where it isn't in the spotlight.

Going back to the sweetener thing, I'm curious to know your views on MSG, RDAs and the large percentage of whatever it is that goes into energy drinks.

[cantaffordannsx]

No probelm happy to help.Deeply envious of your status - wish I could do my time again. Would certainly be less well behaved.

My take on MSG is simple. No problem - the perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's safe. Its use is determined under additive legislation which have quite ludicrous safety margins incorporated. But food is not just about safety - all things in moderation. Like all things I think it is good in moderation - or quantum satis as they say. If I have a chicken sandwich I don't want MSG, if I am looking for a flavoursome occasional snack, I personally don'y have a problem INHO. Where I get cross is when people assert that it causes diseases etc. bum droppings. bum droppings. bum droppings.

RDAs (actually being phased out) they are being replaced by 'reference intakes' - new law came out Dec 2011. These do have a basis in fact but are typical values based upon population data. If you are a 6ft3 training athlete - they are meaningless for you personally. IF you are like me, they are a useful guide to how much 'X' vit/mineral I should be having. This is the new link to the law I was talking about, if you want to know about where food law is going this is the key regulation looking forward. you want pg 61 Annexx XIII.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 063:EN:PDF

Energy drinks. Different and much much more complex story. If you have the occasional energy drink, (unless there is a medical reason why you shouldn't) you will be fine. If you drink 10 litres of these every day, you will not. I know that sounds stupid but toxicology is all about exposure. In fact the only true equation here is that risk = hazard x exposure. For energy drinks it is about exposure on a population scale. Caffiene does have physiological effects and is fine if you stick to your limits.
I think I have represented my own opinion way too much already so I think it is time for another impartial free source of facts. Legislation was passed in Europe in 2006 establishing the legal framework for ALL nutrition and heath claims in Europe. (I won't link to the legislation itself but if you use the goole trick for powerpoints you will find many presentations that explain it better 2006/1924/EC landmark bit of legislation - terribly written.) Bottom line - you are now only able to make a Nutrition or health claim unless it is on a specific list. There are a few exceptions (ironically such as caffeine, where EFSA have said that th eevidence matches the claimed effect but EU powers have got twitchy - essentially if a claim is 'pending' you can still mak it if toy can prove it - such as caffeine and alertness. Taurine (and others) however....do not pass go.......do not collect £200......

click on blue button in centre of screen and then 'I have read...." put 'taurine' or whatever into the keyword and it will tell you if a claim is ok or not.
http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims/

So I personally do drink energy drinks on occasion, I do not drink them all the time. Ditto coffee. I drink the ones I like the taste of - some taste like bum droppings.
When it comes to any product I would only advocate - try it and see if it does it for you.

[mercutio]

my missus has terrible reactions to aspartame and she isnt the only one within five or ten minutes of drinking or eating something with aspartame in it she will know all about it so it all depends on what you call safe
we have to be very carefull shopping where aspartame is concerned

[Sailor]

You have to keep the science and the philosophy sepeate inho,

I don't agree. The amalgamation of different approaches is a fundamental building block of scientific and cultural development.

if you merge the two too much you get way too much opinion posing as fact.

It's true that there's a tendency for this kind of thing in any discussion. Yet without the discussion, applying the science in a moral way becomes difficult. Most pure research exists in or for itself: the product development usually comes later.

[Donald]

my missus has terrible reactions to aspartame and she isnt the only one within five or ten minutes of drinking or eating something with aspartame in it she will know all about it so it all depends on what you call safe
we have to be very carefull shopping where aspartame is concerned

Something unsafe and having an allergic reaction are different things

Milk is safe but my mrs struggles with digesting lactose so we have to have speshal milk.

[mercutio]

yeah but the only thing she has an intolerance to is aspartame she used to have one particular soft drink the only thing that changed was the sweetener then she started having problems google it and lots of other are having the same issues.
how can that be safe?
If you have a chemical that has a list of side effects it shouldnt be in food and i am no food evangelist but i dont beleive an additive should be used if there is a possible issue with it.
Eating or drinking is enough of a lottery nowadays if you buy blindly without stacking the deck

[Doggo]

My underpants are a bit tight, now you mention it




(Intelligent contribution to follow - maybe. I'm enjoying everyone else's)