Where are the Crops?

Posted on July 29th, 2008 in IP by Anastasia

Michael Heller, law prof at Columbia, has a nice opinion piece in this month’s Forbes concerning biotech patents. His article, Where are the Cures? is about medical biotech, but the ideas apply to agricultural biotech as well. The problem isn’t patents on finished products, but patents on the building blocks needed to make those products - the kernels, not the cob.

Michael blames the dearth of new drugs on “patent gridlock”. He writes: “Now, more than ever, biomedical invention requires assembling scattered bits of intellectual property. That’s expensive and complex. Simply to determine ownership of intellectual property used in a small lab studying a rare ocular disease, the University of Iowa reportedly had to contact 71 entities. Academic scientists routinely respond to gridlock by becoming patent pirates, just like their students who are illegally downloading music. Secrecy is on the rise, and scientists are increasingly reluctant to share research materials.” Ag biotech researchers have to do the same thing. To develop new crops, a scientist has to either be willing to ignore patent law or work for a corporation with an army of lawyers. With the laws the way they are, it’s no wonder we haven’t seen more innovation in either medicine or crops.

So what do we do? Aside from shifting much more research into the hands of government agencies (which of  course means higher taxes), we have to find a way to encourage companies to innovate while ensuring that they can innovate! Michael’s solution: “With a few tweaks to the patent system, such as changing the formula of determining patent litigation damages, innovators should be able, fairly and efficiently, to assemble multiple patents into valuable new products, including the drugs that might save our lives.” And, the crops that might feed the world.

Image by editorial cartoonist Clay Bennett, found on OpenWetWare’s page on “Synthetic Society/Ownership, sharing and innovation”.

Educating the public on GMOs

Posted on July 22nd, 2008 in education by Anastasia

I’ve been swamped with experiments lately (involving bioavailable iron enhanced maize!) so haven’t been able to keep up with my RSS feeds (I had over 2000 to sift through!). While I’ve been out of the loop, other bloggers have been busy educating the public on the science behind genetic engineering! I’d like to share just a few (in no particular order)…

CS Prakash at GMO Food for Thought posted an amusing and informative video from the International Food Information Council titled What’s for lunch? The video focuses on the idea that we should choose science over fads and heresay.

Karl at Inoculated Mind has been working to debunk some biotech myths being spread by Claire Hope Cummings, author of Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds. I’m eagerly anticipating a possible podcast debate.

Pamela at Tomorrow’s Table asks if people might be more accepting of biotechnology if we had more genetically engineered toys, such as GloFish (I love their logo, especially the color scheme).

Malaysia4Biotech is a new blog dedicated to education. I’m looking forward to reading their fresh perspectives on biotechnology. Thanks, Roger at GMO Pundit for the find.

Finally, Science Careers seems to be getting into the blogging game ala ScienceBlogs, they are looking for contributors. If only I had the time!

Transition to Organic

Posted on July 21st, 2008 in education by Anastasia

The Rodale Institute, major proponent of organic agriculture, is offering a free online at-your-own-pace course that focuses on the transition from conventional to organic farming. They also have a calculator that farmers can use to find how much more (or less, I suppose) their farm can make if they transition to organic, given their specific situation. If you take the course, let me know what you think.

The Rodale Institute does a lot of good work, although I am frustrated by their nonscience views on quite a few topics, including raw milk and genetic engineering. The whole technology-is-evil schtick is less than productive, but many organic techniques are productive. I used to have a very negative view of organic because of their rejection of science, but Tomorrow’s Table by Pamela Ronald changed my views. She explains that reduction of chemical inputs and impact on the environment can be best achieved with a combination of organic techniques and careful application of genetic engineering. Buying organic doesn’t necessarily mean “I think GMOs are evil” but it does mean “I don’t want to eat pesticides, and am looking for a change.”

Thanks to Dr. Cornelia Butler Flora of NCRCRD for pointing this course out to ISU’s Sustainable Agriculture students.

The course overall is a good introduction to what organic is and its benefits. Not unexpectedly, I do have a few critiques (as well as compliments)…

Labels

Posted on July 20th, 2008 in Food, regulation by Anastasia

Vegetarian Times often lures me into buying an issue with their delicious cover recipes, like this amazing looking “Mediterranean pressed picnic sandwich”. The recipes are great, but I wish they would stick with what they know best. This month’s “carrot & stick” column contained the following:

“STICKS TO American Crystal Sugar Company, based in Moorhead, Minn., for sourcing sugar from genetically engineered sugar beets designed to withstand the herbicide Roundup. Since sugar beets account for half of the nation’s granulated sugar production, GE ingredients will soon be present in just about every nonorganic, multiple-ingredient product people buy, says the Organic Consumers Association, which has called on American Crystal to reconsider its decision. Products containing GE ingredients are not required to be labeled as such.”

I like food labels. I wish we had more, but if we are going to have one label, we’ve gotta have them all…