Stronger Plants, Stronger Science, and Stronger Communication
Author: Anastasia Bodnar
Anastasia is a science communicator and multidisciplinary risk analyst with a career in federal service. She has a PhD in plant genetics and sustainable agriculture from Iowa State University.
Anastasia's writing with SciMoms is conducted in her personal capacity, and the views expressed do not represent the views of the USDA.
Most people will have heard the hype about Impossible and Beyond plant-based burgers. Some meat eaters say no thanks, preferring beef. Some vegetarians prefer less meaty options. Burgers of any type can be part of a healthy diet, but how do plant-based and animal-based options stack up? In this brief post, we’ll look at a variety of plant-based and animal-based burgers. We’ll compare nutrition, price, and other characteristics.
Delicious burgers can be plant-based or animal-based. Don’t forget all the toppings and sides!
Bring on the burgers
Here are 10 types of plant-based and animal-based burgers. Most are widely available in grocery stores, restaurants, or both.
Below is a table showing the calories, fat, sodium, carbs, and protein of 10 burger options. Each row is colored from green “best” to red “worst”. All of them have some characteristics that are better and some that are worse. Note that some of the plant-based burgers are fairly small, so I’ve included details for 2 patties to enable more accurate comparison with the bigger burgers.
I’ve included the Recommended Daily Values (RDV) for a 2,000 Calorie diet, as determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) so we can see how each burger fits into a healthy diet. I did not include vitamins and minerals as most people in the United States are not deficient in micronutrients. One burger with a little more or less of a given vitamin is not going to make a difference in most people’s diet.
It’s pretty clear that beef consisting of 75% lean and 25% fat is not a good choice if you are looking to avoid higher calories, fat, saturated fat, trans fat, or cholesterol. On the other hand, the Original Gardenburger is not a good choice if you want protein or if you are trying to avoid sodium. The rest are somewhere in between. Impossible and Beyond burgers are remarkably similar.
Click the image to see a larger table.
Other differences between plant-based and animal-based burgers
Below is a table showing which burgers are vegan (all plant-based), vegetarian (plant-based plus eggs or dairy), or animal-based. It also shows major allergens, GMO labels, and price at two stores in Northern Virginia. Plant-based burgers are more expensive than animal-based burgers overall.
Allergens are listed here as reported on the product label. All prices are for Northern Virginia, a relatively expensive part of the United States. Click the image to see a larger table.
Don’t forget allergens
When deciding what burger is best for a given purpose, don’t forget allergens. Most plant-based burgers contain major allergens, including soy, milk, and wheat. Some also contain other allergens, such as pea, coconut, and potato. Keep in mind that meat-based burgers aren’t automatically safe either. People often mix meat with allergen-containing foods such as breadcrumbs.
Bottom line: if you’re preparing food for others, be sure to ask about food allergies, especially if your guests might expect animal-based burgers and you are serving plant-based alternatives.
Sustainability of plant-based and animal-based burgers
The criteria above are fairly easy to consider, most are right on the label. Sustainability is more challenging, in part because animals can be raised in very different ways. Surprisingly, the beef for the 75/25 frozen patties was from Brazil, which has a different impact compared to US beef due to land use changes.
One way to look at burger sustainability is that all of these are made of legumes and grains. It’s just that the animal-based options add one major step: animals. I’ve simplified the steps in the diagrams below. No matter how sustainably raised animals are, there are still extra steps for animal-based products compared to plant-based products. In short: “Reducing red meat consumption may be a small yet significant way in which individuals can lower their carbon footprint.”
Very simplified process of how we get from plants to plant-based products.Very simplified process of how we get from plants to animal-based products.
So many choices
As for which burger is best? It depends on what is important to you. If calories or price is king, Boca All American or turkey are good choices. If you’re looking for 100% plant-based, choose one of the vegan options: Morningstar Meat Lover, Impossible, or Beyond. If you are concerned about sodium, turkey or beef is best, but be careful about adding sodium-filled mix-ins or toppings. Beef and Impossible seem to be the tastiest if you are looking for a treat.
Impossibly tasty
For me at this time, calories and protein are most important factors. I am vegetarian, meaning that my diet is mostly made up of plants, dairy, and eggs. Though I will very occasionally eat sustainably raised or harvested seafood including crabs and lobster!
I don’t eat burgers very often, but I do happily use soy crumbles such as Morningstar Grillers Crumbles. These have 18 grams of protein and just 120 calories for about 4oz. Crumbles are great on tacos, nachos, mixed into soup, nearly anything you’d use ground beef for.
I’ll try nearly any plant-based product but Impossible is particularly exciting. I studied heme (the iron containing molecule that makes Impossible taste and look meaty) for my doctoral thesis. Impossible’s scientists even cited my work in some of their supporting documentation, such as their safety evaluation of soy leghemoglobin (a type of heme). I’ve enjoyed Impossible burgers in restaurants and have really wanted to cook with this plant-based option at home.
So, when I saw Impossible burger in my local grocery store, I immediately bought a package! Time for tacos! Right away, it smelled like beef, though it honestly looked like frozen cat food. It cooked up very nicely and didn’t leave a ton of grease in the pan like beef does. The “meat” had a very beefy texture and flavor that even my omnivorous spouse enjoyed. With the high price and relatively high calorie count, Impossible won’t be a daily meal, but it will certainly return to our plates, probably as chili!
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently removed the final barriers for raising and selling AquaBounty’s GMO salmon in the US. These genetically engineered salmon grow faster and use less resources, while providing a healthy food that is indistinguishable from conventional salmon.
Now, Know Ideas Media has added to the conversation with the video below. Nick Saik encourages viewers to “do something real for science today” by using Richard’s template to contact your grocery store and ask for fast-growing genetically engineered salmon.
Biology Fortified runs on a content management system called WordPress. We operated a self-hosted WordPress for a decade, then moved to a WordPress.com Business Plan. While no system is perfect, we like this content management system for many reasons.
To help our own guest authors and other new science communicators get started, here is our set of mini-tutorials. These tutorials assume you are using WordPress.com, though most of the steps will also work for self-hosted WordPress.
We hope you find these WordPress tutorials helpful. If you’re looking for a place to write, consider the Biofortified Blog. We can provide guidance and editing to help you grow as an author. Group blogs have many advantages over striking out on your own – the main one being that you can spend your precious time writing instead of managing a website. Write with us!
On the top left-hand side, select My Sites, then choose the site you want to edit. You may need to click on Switch Site if one is already selected.
Then you can proceed with adding or changing content.
Create a Page or Post
Pages and Posts are the two primary content types on a WordPress site. Think of a Page as a more permanent part of the website. A Post is also permanent in that it will remain until deleted, but it will be pushed down by more recent posts over time.
For example, on our homepage at Biofortified.org, you can see six recent posts. Older posts do not appear on our homepage, but can be found on our posts page or by searching on our site.
On the left-hand side at WordPress.com, look for either Site Pages or Blog Posts and click the corresponding Add New button.
Now simply type, delete, or move text however you wish! You may notice that the text is organized in little containers. Those containers are called blocks. WordPress introduced those as part of their Gutenberg editor in late 2018. WordPress provides support on how to use the editor. You can also learn more about block types at Go Gutenberg.
Edit a Page or Post
On the left-hand side at WordPress.com, click on Site Pages and the list of all of your pages will appear. Or, click on Blog Posts and the list of all your posts will appear.
If you have many pages or posts, you can use the magnifying glass above the list of pages to search, or you can simply click on the title of the Page or Post you wish to edit.
Now simply type, delete, or move text however you wish! (as described above)
Add an Image to a Page or Post
Images (photos, charts, screenshots, infographics, etc.) are incredibly important for illustrating your content and visually breaking up text. Be sure that you have permission if you wish to use someone else’s work. See our post on Copyright and Fair Use for more information.
Infographics in particular are a great way to display complex information. What is an infographic? Learn all about them from Venngage. You can use an infographic website (such as Venngage, Canva, or Spark) or you can simply use PowerPoint or Google Docs.
In a Page or Post, hover your mouse cursor over a block. You’ll notice a plus sign appear at the top of the block. Click the plus sign, and a box with options will appear (see screenshot below). Select the Image block type, or search for image in the “Search for a block” search bar.
The image block gives you three options: upload a new image, select an existing image from the Media Library, or insert an image from another website.
To upload a new image, simply click the Upload button and follow the instructions.
To select a file from the library, click the Media Library button. You can use the search box in the library if you know the title, caption, or other information associated with the file.
Inserting an image from another website is typically not a good idea – if the other website owner removes the photo then the image will no longer appear on your website.
Once you have uploaded or selected an image, add the caption and alt text.
A caption typically describes the image or how the image connects to your text. The caption should also include your rights to share the image, such as indicating you took the image, that you have permission from the owner to share it, or includes the Creative Commons license if applicable.
Alt text helps search engines find your images, and is an important part of search engine optimization. Alt text is also important for people using screen readers: it tells them what the image is showing. Therefore, include your keyword and descriptive text.
Screenshot of WordPress block options by Anastasia Bodnar.
Screenshot of WordPress image block options by Anastasia Bodnar.
Add Anchors
An anchor is a way to link to a part of a page or post. The Gutenberg editor in WordPress makes it very easy to create something like the Table of Contents above. It’s also convenient when you want to send someone a link to a specific part of a post or page.
Click on a heading within your page or post. The menu to the left hand side will change to show heading block options.
Click on Advanced in the menu to the left.
Add a word in the HTML Anchor field that describes the section you want to link to.
Select the word or words you want to hyperlink with the anchor, and click on the link button for the paragraph section.
Instead of pasting a link, type the pound symbol #, then the word you indicated for the Anchor. For example, I would link to this Add Anchors section by typing #anchors.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
Consider what your keyword or keyphrase will be for the post, and remember to include it in the title, in some of your headings, and in multiple places throughout the post. Yoast, a WordPress plugin, has great information about keywords to get you started.
Even if you’re not using an SEO plugin like Yoast, including a keyword or keyphrase throughout a post or page will help search engines to find your work. Want to learn more? The Beginner’s Guide to SEO from Mozilla is a great place to start.
Once you are done writing your post, be sure to add one or two sentences that describe your post or page in the WordPress Excerpt field. You’ll find it in the right hand navigation bar, under the Document tab. The excerpt should include your keyword or keyphrase, and can also be used as the meta description for the post or page; Yoast calls this the snippet and it will appear in search results. You can also use the excerpt as your first paragraph to help readers know what your post is about before they dive in.
Collaborate with Google Docs
Google Docs makes it particularly easy to write and edit content collaboratively. We usually can’t be in the same room when we collaborate, but with Google Docs we may as well be. Even if you’re writing solo, it can still be helpful to write in Google Docs so you have a record of your work outside of WordPress.
High five! Collaboration is an important part of this WordPress tutorial.
Compose your Text
Simply type your text into a Google Doc. WordPress will format your text to your theme font after you import. Simple formatting like bold, italics, numbered or bulleted lists, and hyperlinks will import as expected. Do not add extra breaks between paragraphs. Instead, select all text in the document, click on Format, then “Add space after paragraph.”
Do not add images in Google Docs as they do not paste into WordPress. Instead, add images directly to WordPress. You can note your captions at the bottom of the Google Doc for easy pasting into WordPress. Be sure to keep track of the sources of your images. You can also note your SEO keyword at the bottom of the Google doc to keep track.
Add Headings
Use Heading 1 to indicate the title. Do not use Heading 1 in the post or page content. Use Heading 2 to mark primary headings, and Heading 3 to indicate any secondary headings.
Keep it Simple
Even if you are writing technical content, shorter sentences, active voice, and transition words can help your readers. Further, search engines today “read” your text effectively the same way a human would. Use a readability tool to make sure that your text isn’t too complex. Once you import into WordPress, the free Yoast plugin can make some readability recommendations for you.
Collaborate
Once your draft is ready, click on the Share button in the top right-hand side of the Google Docs window. Type in the email addresses of the collaborators or editors you wish to share the document with. They will receive an email that they can now collaborate on your document. Collaborators can make comments, add suggestions, and edit the text directly.
Add Content to WordPress
Once everyone is satisfied with the document, the next step is to copy and paste the text into a WordPress post or page. The Gutenberg editor usually adds headings as heading blocks and adds each paragraph as its own paragraph block, but be sure to read through your text before publishing to make sure the content pasted as you expected. You’ll then need to add images, anchors, fill in SEO details, and set up social media sharing for the post before you are ready to publish.
Post by Email
If you have simple posts without much formatting, one very easy way to add a new post is to email it to your WordPress site! Learn more about Post by Email from WordPress.
First, you’ll need to turn on the Post by Email option. Login to WordPress, then scroll to the bottom of the left hand dashboard and select Settings. Click on Writing at the top of the page, then scroll down to Publishing Tools and turn on the “Publish posts by sending an email” option. WordPress will generate a special email address you can use to create new posts via an email.
Once you have your special email address, all you have to do is compose an email and send! You can use basic formatting like bold and italics, and basic HTML such as to designate headings. Shortcodes can add additional information such as setting the category of the post.
Be careful – any content you send to your special email address will post to your website automatically. A good option is to add the shortcode [status draft] at the beginning of your email to tell WordPress not to publish. Instead, your content will be saved as a draft post and you will need to login to WordPress to finalize the post and publish.
Note: Specific tools and websites are mentioned to assist the reader and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement.
Giving scientific presentations that aren’t dry and boring, and that people outside your field can understand is a learned skill. Not everyone can meet the challenge. This article collects some tips and links to help you give scientific presentations and other types of presentations like a boss.
An article in Nature, Top tips for giving an engaging talk, provides advice from three researchers that presented at TED events. It’s full of useful information for science communicators. For example:
Immunologist Faith Osier says: “You have to offer enough detail without getting too much into the nitty-gritty.”
Physicist Shohini Ghose reminds us: “Being engaged with the public doesn’t come for free in terms of time. One fewer TED talk would allow me to publish extra research or to go to other conferences. I don’t think that it’s for everybody. It has to match your career goals.”
Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt suggests that we should choose a main point, and each “slide should push that point further rather than go off on an ancillary detail.” This helps to reduce clutter. He also says recording a great talk is worth the investment: “Being able to point people who have contacted me with questions to the TED talk also saves me an enormous amount of time.”
Looking for more recommendations on scientific presentations? Check out these links for more details! Not that everyone has different advice and some give advice that conflicts with what others recommend. Take what works for you and don’t feel pressured to follow all of the “rules”.
Speak your science: How to give a better conference talk is a little long but one of the best articles I’ve seen on this topic. The author recommends considering the who, what, how, and why of your presentation (I’ve given presentations myself on a similar strategy for scicomm).
Scientific presentations: A cheat sheet presents concrete ideas on how to develop a successful presentation. For example, do you use an outline slide in your presentations? Coming back to your outline can help the audience see where you’re going in your talk, but be careful not to have a useless outline with non-descriptive words like “Introduction” and “Conclusion”.
10 Keys to an Engaging Scientific Presentation shares some little discussed details. For example, don’t use full sentences on your slides. Use enough words on the slide to help the audience get your point, but most of the presentation should be spoken.
If you are looking for a really deep dive on the topic, consider How To Give a Talk. Each page has great advice, organized into the following topics:
These are just a few of the hundreds if not thousands of resources out there. What resources or guidelines about scientific presentations have you found helpful?
Today is the 105th anniversary of Norm Borlaug’s birth. Born on a small farm in Iowa, Norm went on to study plant pathology. He lived a life of service, becoming of humanity’s greatest people. He won a Nobel Prize in 1970 for his efforts to improve wheat and rice, reducing the amount of land needed.
Norman Borlaug with spikes of wheat.Photo credit: CIMMYT.
On his 100th birthday, Biology Fortified and CIMMYT collaborated with artist Melody Sheep to produce this tribute to Norm. Enjoy!
Learn about Norm in this video from the World Food Prize.
Read more about Norm in these Biology Fortified posts:
As many people are getting ready to color their Easter eggs, now is an excellent time to discuss eggs – specifically their sustainability and animal welfare concerns. Eggs are a low-cost source of protein and other nutrients. They are an important and well-loved part of many people’s diets. Eggs are also more sustainable than most other animal-sourced foods. But some practices in egg production are concerning when it comes to animal welfare. A philanthropic group now aims to remedy one area of concern. (Content warning: This article discusses culling of male chicks.)
Colorful Easter eggs are just one of many ways that eggs are an important part of cultures across the globe. My Babcia (grandmother) used foods like beets, onion skins, and cabbage to color Easter eggs in beautiful muted shades.
Calling for improvements in chick welfare
The Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) has a new initiative called the the Egg-Tech Prize. This project aims to find solutions to one major welfare issue – unneeded male chicks. FFAR is offering up to $400,000 per project, with up to 5 projects selected. You have a little time to consider ideas – applications are due on May 15, 2019.
Why does this matter? Obviously, male chicks are not useful for laying eggs. But male chicks from an egg-laying breed can’t be raised for meat due to low meat quality and slower growth than chickens that are specifically bred for meat.
The current industry standard involves euthanizing male chicks by grinding, suffocating, or other means. Such work can take a psychological toll on those who carry out the euthanasia. Even if you raise backyard chickens, your chicks likely come from a facility that euthanizes male chicks. Trade group United Egg Producers pledged to stop these practices, and instead determine the sex of eggs before they hatch. The problem is, there still isn’t a good method to do that.
Even if you aren’t concerned about the welfare of chicks, the distress or pain they may experience as they are euthanized, or the ethical issue of creating a life just to immediately kill it, there’s an argument to be made for making a sustainable product even more sustainable. Culled male chicks end up as chicken by-product meal in pet food, or as fertilizer. They don’t go entirely to waste, but they could be put to better use. For example, male eggs could be diverted to vaccine production.
Note that culling of male chicks isn’t the only welfare concern associated with egg production. Other concerns include keeping layers in cages, but cage-free eggs can lead to other problems, and have a higher cost.
Incredible eggs
As shown in the below Protein Scorecard by the World Resources Institute, eggs are inexpensive (2.5 to 4 cents per gram of protein) and have relatively low impact on the environment. Globally, eggs take less water to produce than roots and tubers, dairy, poultry, farmed fish, pork, or beef. Egg substitutes are getting better all the time, but these highly-processed foods have their own disadvantages.
As FFAR points out, “for the 6 billion laying hens hatched each year worldwide, a similar number of male chicks are produced that never make it to market.” Finding ways to use (or even prevent) unneeded male chicks could have quite an impact, making eggs even less resource intensive.
In addition to being high-protein and sustainable, eggs are also delicious and versatile in cooking. These factors make eggs an incredibly important source of protein, globally. Many, many countries around the world feature eggs in traditional dishes. Groups like Heifer International advocate eggs as an important way to provide nutrition to children and help pull families out of poverty.
As we approach Easter, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention my favorite, Polish Easter Soup, also known as bread soup or white barszcz. Its tangy sour taste can be provided by vinegar or by fermented flour. Easter soup is a delicious way to enjoy Easter eggs! For many years, I have made a solid vegetarian Easter soup, though no one sells a decent vegetarian kielbasa!
Aside from holidays, my family relies on eggs as a protein source that we all enjoy. I’d feel a little better about our frequent egg dinners if culling male chicks was no longer necessary.
Alternatives to culling male chicks
How can this problem of unneeded male chicks be solved? Some have proposed Dual-purpose chickens as alternative to culling. It’s an attractive idea, but such dual-purpose chickens are not as efficient as single-purpose chickens. They are slower to grow, and lay fewer eggs, decreasing the sustainability of both egg and chicken meat production.
Various alternative culling methods have been proposed, but none are ideal. For example, 100% carbon dioxide produces a relatively quick death, but chicks are still in distress. It’s not much of an improvement, and the destined-to-die male eggs still take up space in incubators.
Screening the eggs before hatching would be better, though can be expensive, up to 5 cents per egg. Light can be used to determine whether an egg is fertilized. Light may also be a way to determine if an embryo is male or female. Researchers have found that male chick embryos are more opaque than female chick embryos.
As a geneticist, my first thought after reading about the Egg-Tech Prizewas – surely there’s a way to solve this with genetics-related methods. Biotech doesn’t solve every problem, but it’s a really useful tool!
A quick aside – chicken sex is determined by chromosomes, just as in mammals. However, while mammals are XX female and XY male, chickens and other birds are ZW female and WW male. Of course, this is a major simplification of sex, particularly when we are talking about humans. View an infographic with just some of the complexity at Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination.
The researchers put the gene for red fluorescence on the W chromosome provided by the mother chicken. Males would get that genetically engineered W plus a regular W from their father. Female chickens would get a Z from their mother and a regular W from their father. The resulting female eggs would not have the fluorescence gene.
While this solution is interesting, I am not as optimistic as the researchers that such chickens would escape regulation. Any egg production companies wanting to use this technology (or any technology that involves DNA or biomarkers) would have to install new screening systems, a significant barrier to adoption. And, you still have a ton of male eggs that need to be used quickly before they develop into chicks or spoil.
Who needs males, anyway?
Parthenogenesis is the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg. While rare in birds, there are examples of virgin chickens and turkeys laying eggs that develop into chicks. Perhaps an egg laying chicken breed could be developed that would lay parthenogeneic female eggs when given some sort of inducer, but otherwise would lay unfertilized eggs. There would both be no unwanted male eggs and no need for males at all!
Of course, this is much easier said than done. Plants are more cooperative when it comes to apomixis (parthenogenesis in plants). However, there are examples of parthenogenic vertebrates. For example, the whiptail lizard is a polyploid obligate parthenogen that has all female offspring.
One point in favor of this idea is that “genomic imprinting is believed to be absent in birds“. In other words, the epigenetic programming that happens in mammal embryos isn’t an issue for chickens. Another point in favor of this idea is that inducible parthenogenesis has been in development for stem cell research, so compounds are being identified that could induce parthenogenesis, such as valproic acid. Ideally, an inducer could be applied in feed or along with vaccines to reduce need for additional handling of the birds.
I don’t plan to apply for the Egg-Tech Prize, so feel please free to research and pursue this idea 😉 I’d just be happy to find eggs that don’t require culling male chicks. I’ll hard boil the eggs, dye them with onion skins for Easter, and then make vegetarian Polish Easter soup!
Today is March 14, 2019 – Pi Day! Many scientists (and others) around the world are celebrating with pie.
This got me thinking – what would a spread of pies featuring GMOs look like? The most common GMOs are sugar beets, cotton, corn, papaya, soy, canola, potato, and apple – as shown in the SciMomsGuide to GMOs Infographic.
Most pies contain beet sugar, and many have vegetable oil that may be sourced from corn, canola, or cotton. But what pies might feature GMOs as the main ingredient? Here are some recipes to try!
It’s not available in the US yet, but what about some Salmon pie made with GMO salmon? My favorite pie is pecan pie. I haven’t had it before, but there are many recipes for Chestnut pie – how amazing would it be to have American chestnuts for a pie?
What are your favorite pies? How did you celebrate Pi Day?
Developers of the fast-growing genetically engineered salmon first started the approval process with the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995. In 2019, we are a bit closer to having the option of buying this fish for ourselves, as the FDA clears the final regulatory hurdle to allow sale of AquAdvantage salmon.
The resulting genetically engineered fish are ~99.99986% Atlantic salmon, with the addition of just 4,205 base pairs in a genome of 2.97 billion bases. Further, the growth hormone proteins from Chinook and Atlantic salmon are 95% identical. This leaves the ocean pout promoter as the only “new” element. The developers chose this promoter because genes it controls are continually expressing – always on – as opposed to the salmon promoter for growth hormone, which is only on in certain environmental conditions.
Even though the inserted growth hormone gene is always on, it doesn’t have much of an effect unless the fish have access to food. When allowed to eat as much as they want (fed to satiation), juvenile AquAdvantage salmon can grow nearly 3 times longer than conventional juvenile Atlantic salmon. But in a simulated natural environment with limited food, juvenile AquAdvantage salmon grew only a little larger than juvenile conventional salmon.
While AquAdvantage salmon grow faster, they do not grow larger overall – adult AquAdvantage salmon and adult conventional Atlantic salmon are the same size. The genetically engineered fish just get to that size faster and with less feed. As FDA describes, “the overall total amount of feed required to produce the same fish biomass was reduced by 25%” for AquAdvantage salmon.
There will always be a place for wild-caught fish on our plates, just as there is a place for other speciality products like heirloom pork, wild mushrooms, and so many other wonderful things. But in a world with a growing population and a growing demand for nutritious fish like salmon, we can not rely only on wild stocks. Aquaculture is a necessity.
Wild-caught Pacific salmon are not able to meet demand, in part due to vulnerability to higher water temperatures related to climate change. In 2018, US west coast salmon fisheries along Washington, Oregon, and California requested fishery disaster assistance from the Department of Commerce due to commercial fishery failures in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Even as wild fisheries decline, demand for salmon is increasing. In 2016, the US imported ~339,000 metric tons of salmon, mostly farmed Atlantic salmon raised in cages in the ocean, as Richard Martin reports in Genetically engineered fish is not a matter of “if” but “when”. In 2018, the US imported 403,107 metric tons of all types of salmon, with a value of over $4.1 billion, (327,116 metric tons and $3.4 billion of Atlantic salmon alone) according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch rates indoor farmed salmon (raised the way genetically engineered salmon would be raised) as a “Best Choice.” Fish that grow faster will consume less feed, take less energy, decrease prices for consumers, and potentially provide a product with fewer parasites than ocean-raised fish. All this, with the potential to create jobs in the US with additional rearing facility locations, and to decrease reliance on ocean-based farms and open-air ponds that pose known risks to ecosystems.
In the US, AquAdvantage salmon required two assessments: one to determine safety of a new animal drug that would be entering the food supply (under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, new genes and gene products in genetically engineered animals are regulated as animal drugs by the FDA), and one for potential risk to the environment (as required under the National Environmental Policy Act).
In Canada, AquAdvantage salmon required three assessments: one for safety and nutrition of the salmon for use as food, one for safety and nutrition of the salmon for use as a livestock feed, and one for potential risk to the environment.
The regulatory process may have been lengthy, but one benefit is that we can be confident that the salmon is safe to eat and safe for the environment. We have two independent sets of regulatory processes to consider, one in Canada and one in the United States. While there are similarities in what the regulatory agencies are looking for, the laws and regulations were developed independently and the people in the agencies themselves are different, under different types of internal and external influences.
The agencies in both the United States and Canada independently found fast-growing genetically engineered salmon to be safe to eat and safe for the environment. A summary of the safety findings from the regulatory agencies is below.
GMO salmon for food and feed
The regulators considered three main types of issues with regard to using AquAdvantage for food and feed: nutrients, hormones, and allergenicity.
Protein, fats, vitamins, and other components of fish and other foods can vary widely due to the variety of the plant or animal, the place it was raised, the weather while it was growing, and many other factors. Because there is so much variation within each food type, a simple comparison between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered doesn’t make sense. Instead, scientists and regulators look at a range of values.
For example, a Consensus Document for maize reports that protein in field corn ranges from 6% to 12.7% of dry weight. Therefore, in testing the protein of corn with genetically engineered traits, we’d need to take a second look at any values that fall outside of that range.
Fast-growing genetically engineered salmon could make nutritious and delicious dishes like this more sustainable and affordable.
Nutrients in GMO salmon
Both FDA and Health Canada determined that fast-growing genetically engineered salmon is safe for humans and animals to eat. Both agencies found that there were no substantial changes in the protein and fat (including omega-3 fatty acids) profiles of AquAdvantage salmon compared to expected ranges.
For diploid AquAdvantage salmon, the niacin level was higher than expected ranges, but the level is not of nutritional concern. The majority of AquAdvantage salmon salmon (more than 99%) are triploid, and triploid salmon had niacin levels within expected ranges.
Hormones in GMO salmon
Specific concerns with AquAdvantage salmon include increased hormone content in the edible parts of the fish. Both FDA and Health Canada concluded that there is no health risk to humans or livestock associated with hormones in AquAdvantage salmon.
First, the growth hormone produced by AquAdvantage salmon is from Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are commonly consumed and have a safe history of use, with no concerns about toxicity. Second, the amount of growth hormone (and associated regulatory hormones) in muscle and skin of adult (market weight) AquAdvantage salmon was not distinguishable from conventional salmon. People who eat AquAdvantage salmon would not be exposed to any more growth hormone than people who eat conventional salmon or other animal-sourced foods.
Health Canada points out that “the scientific literature has consistently shown that dietary growth hormones from various animal species have very poor bioavailability in mammals and humans.” This means that growth hormones consumed in the diets are primarily digested, not absorbed intact. Any tiny amount of the Chinook salmon growth hormone that might be absorbed would have a limited effect in humans “due to the species specificity exhibited by the human [growth hormone] receptor.”
Allergens in GMO salmon
Fish, including salmon, is a major food allergen. Of course, people who are allergic to salmon will also be allergic to AquAdvantage salmon. Still, the regulatory agencies investigated whether AquAdvantage salmon would have more fish allergens than conventional salmon. Analysis showed that allergens in triploid AquAdvantage salmon were within the normal range found in conventional salmon.
Diploid AquAdvantage salmon (less than 1% of AquAdvantage salmon) did have statistically higher levels of allergen content, but experts concluded that there would be no impact on non-allergic consumers, and no change in allergenicity for allergic consumers.
GMO salmon in the environment
If reproductive-capable, fast-growing salmon were to escape captivity, they could theoretically breed with nearby salmon or trout and spread the gene for fast-growth. This could have negative consequences for the salmon population, their food sources, competing fish species, and other parts of the ecosystem.
When AquaBounty requested FDA approval of their AquAdvantage salmon, they were very specific about how and where the fish would be raised. The request was for one egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada and one fish production facility in Panama. AquaBounty later requested that a fish production facility in Indiana be added. FDA’s approval is for these locations only, and additional approval would be needed for more locations.
AquaBounty selected (and FDA approved) these locations to have many overlapping ways to prevent release of GMO salmon into the environment. The containment methods include biological, physical, and environmental aspects.
AquAdvantage salmon will not be raised in an environment where they can exhibit this leaping behavior.
Biological containment
Part of biological containment is Atlantic salmon’s own biology. Atlantic salmon reproduction requires fresh running water over a gravel bed. Salmon have complex mating and nesting behavior, and a sexually compatible male must be present when the female spawns. In the waters near the egg and fish rearing facilities, there are no males or gravel beds. Even if a female were to spawn, the eggs would not be fertilized. In addition, spawning takes so much energy that 60% or more female salmon die after spawning.
Another part of biological containment is that AquAdvantage salmon can not breed – they are sterile. AquaBounty pressure treats salmon eggs to induce triploidy (3 sets of chromosomes instead of 2 sets). Since a small percentage of triploid males can reproduce, AquaBounty adds another layer of biological containment by only using female fish. A 2018 study, Comparisons of reproductive function and fatty acid fillet quality between triploid and diploid farm Atlantic salmon, confirmed that “escaped triploid farm salmon are very unlikely to reproduce in the wild.”
If you eat fish, you’ve likely already dined on triploid fish. Triploid fish of many species, including salmon, trout, and carp, have been used around the world for decades. They are used in commercial fisheries and recreational fishing areas to prevent farmed or stocked fish from breeding with wild fish. Triploid fish grow to a larger body size and have higher quality meat because the animals do not undergo the stress of reproduction. Other triploids that we eat include bananas and watermelon.
Lastly, the fast-growth trait serves as a sort of biological containment as well. Fast-growing fish (whether resulting through breeding or biotechnology) and triploid fish have some changes relative to conventional diploid salmon that could decrease survival in the wild. Changes that may affect AquAdvantage salmon survival in the wild include: increased metabolism causing smaller energy reserves, higher oxygen consumption, decreased tolerance to stress, increased appetite, increased aggression, and reduced response to predators.
Physical containment
Because a small percentage of AquAdvantage salmon could be capable of reproduction, additional containment methods are necessary to ensure eggs or fish do not escape. Their facilities use numerous layers of filters, screens, and nets. Chlorine is used in drains to kill eggs or fry that might somehow slip through. Facilities are inspected daily and standard operating procedures are in place for every process in each facility.
AquaBounty also has security to protect against human sabotage. Facilities have security cameras (the Panama facility has guard dogs) and fencing around each property (fencing is topped with barbed wire at the Panama and Indiana locations) among other measures.
Security cameras are part of the physical security measures used by AquaBounty at their facilities.
Environmental containment
In the highly unlikely case that a fertile AquAdvantage salmon could escape, the local environment near each facility would make it nearly impossible for any escapee to survive to adulthood, find a sexually compatible male fish, and reproduce.
The egg production facility is located in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The biological and physical containment measures mean it is nearly impossible that a fertile egg would make it past the filters and chlorine. Any that did would not find a good place to grow into adult fish. The eggs are raised in fresh water, so the salinity in the nearby river reduces likelihood of survival. In the winter, water near the facility is too cold for salmon. Any escaped eggs that somehow managed to grow into adult female fish would not find a male to mate with. Atlantic salmon previously lived in this area, but overfishing, barriers to migration, and acid rain have made them locally extinct.
The fish production facility in Panama is located at a high altitude near a river that drains to the Pacific ocean. Much of the river water is used for power generation, and canals that control water flow are not suitable for salmon. Dams provide a physical barrier to movement downstream. If any fish escaped and they managed to get past the barriers, they could potentially survive in the river closest to the facility, but they would not find any males to mate with. If they tried to move out to sea, high temperatures in the lower lower parts of the river would kill the salmon.
The fish production facility in Indiana includes a series of ponds that will be seeded with wetland plants to help clean effluent before it drains away from the facility. Effluent from the ponds must pass through a screen before reaching a drainage ditch that ultimately drains into the Mississinewa River. The ditch is dry except during wet weather. Even with the effluent from the facility, the water levels in the ditch are expected to be only 1-2 inches near the facility. If fish somehow managed to get out of the facility, past the ponds with screen, and past the ditch into the Upper Mississinewa watershed, they may find conditions where they could survive during some times of the year. However, the watershed is too warm with too little oxygen and too much dissolved solids for salmon and related species like trout. A survey of the watershed found no species of trout or other cold-water salmonids at any of the 35 sampling sites, so any escaped females would not find a male with which to mate. There is also a dam downstream of the facility that would prevent movement of fish, if they were to somehow survive.
The FDA states that “at full capacity, the [Indiana] facility will harvest approximately [90 metric tons] of AquAdvantage Salmon per month.” This will meet only ~0.27% of US demand for salmon (403,107 metric tons in 2018). If there is reasonable consumer acceptance of AquAdvantage salmon, AquaBounty may request approval for more facilities from the FDA. Those facilities will be regulated and inspected by FDA and appropriate agencies in the state in which they are located, continuing to keep appropriate environmental containment of the fast-growing genetically engineered salmon.
Researchers in England have developed genetically modified wheat with higher levels of iron. Support GM wheat trials by sending your comments by 4 March 2019 to Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Email your comments to gm-regulation@defra.gsi.gov.uk with the subject line 19/R52/02.
Defra isn’t holding a vote or a popularity contest. They ask specifically for “representations on any risks of damage being caused to the environment by the release applied for in this application.” If you choose to provide a comment, remember that helpful comments are evidence-based. Discuss the specific risks and benefits posed by the GM wheat in this application, not just GMOs in general. The information below and in the project FAQ may be useful as you write your email.
Iron deficiency is still a major problem – biofortification is one solution
Many groups of people across the world suffer from iron deficiency anemia. It is a serious problem that causes stunting in children and doubles the risk of death for pregnant women. Iron deficiency anemia has been reduced with supplementation and fortification of foods. Even with those efforts, iron deficiency remains a major global health problem.
Unfortunately, staple grains lack genetic diversity for iron, so breeding for higher levels of iron isn’t really possible for crops like wheat and corn. Plant breeding has been successful in developing wheat with higher levels of zinc, another mineral important for human health. But despite decades of trying, international plant breeders have not been able to increase iron levels in wheat.
One concern with biofortification as a solution to micronutrient deficiency is whether costly seed will be made available to all. In the case of this GM high-iron wheat, private seed-company interests are not currently a concern: “the development of this particular wheat line was initially funded by the not-for profit organisation HarvestPlus (2013 – 2014), and subsequently it was publicly funded by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.” Licencing and breeding the trait into locally-relevant varieties is still a consideration, but the first step is making sure the trait performs in a field environment.
Drs. James Connorton, Janneke Balk, and Cristobal Uauy “used the recently published wheat genome to locate two genes that were responsible for transport of iron. They then used one of these genes to direct more iron into the endosperm, the part of the grain from which white flour is milled.” The primary genes involved are from wheat, meaning that the trait is cisgenic (same species) rather than transgenic (different species), though many would still call the wheat a “GMO.” (See Intro to GMOs by the SciMoms for more details.)
As described in their FAQ, there is usually 5 to 8 mg iron per kg of white wheat flour, which is not high enough for human nutritional needs. Therefore, many countries require iron to be artificially added to wheat-based foods to prevent iron deficiency. The United Kingdom requires 16.5 mg iron per kg of milled white flour. Using biotechnology, the researchers developed a wheat variety with 20 mg iron per kg of milled white flour – when plants are grown in greenhouse conditions.
The next step is for the researchers to grow the plants outdoors in a field trial. According to the John Innes Centre, “two small-scale field trials are planned to take place at the John Innes Centre on the Norwich Research Park, within our existing, confined, GM trial facilities, between April and September in each year from 2019 to 2022.”
Support GM wheat trials today
If you follow the guidelines we outline above, your comment could have a significant impact on these trials, and someday could help people with iron deficiency around the world.
Field trials are just one important step in the process – if the trials show the wheat variety has higher iron levels in a typical field environment, the researchers still have much work to do. The wheat would also face many, many more regulatory processes in each country where it might be grown.
If this sounds like beneficial research to you, there’s still time to comment. Support GM wheat trials by sending your comments by 4 March 2019 to Defra. Specifically, email your comments to gm-regulation@defra.gsi.gov.uk with the subject line 19/R52/02.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has presented an award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility annually since 1980. “It honors scientists, engineers or organizations whose exemplary actions have demonstrated scientific freedom and responsibility in challenging circumstances. “
These awards have gone on these past 38 years without much notice, recognizing worthy scientists and organizations for their service. For example, the 2018 award went to Marc Edwards, “a civil and environmental engineer whose team documented lead contamination in the water supply of Flint,” Michigan. This year is a little different…
The 2019 AAAS award winners are…
The award announcement is no longer accessible, but you can view a PDF here.
This year’s award was so controversial that many scientists took to Twitter to express their displeasure. AAAS has revoked public view from the announcement page (though Biofortified saved a PDF) and AAAS announced on Twitter that they will not give the award as planned.
We are taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented next week as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection.
Like many others, I am curious about the circumstances of the nomination and award process, and what happened behind closed doors that resulted in this surprising retraction. In this post, I humbly suggest that AAAS has an opportunity here to improve not just one award or one committee but to reconsider how the organization can encourage different types of scientists to work together.
Sarath Gunatilake, University of California, Long Beach – Mental health, international health, hospital management and quality assurance, training health care workers, disaster management, and occupational and environmental health research in international settings.
Channa Jayasumana, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka – Causes and treatments for chronic kidney disease, nephrotoxins, epistemology, and traditional medicine systems.
Priyantha Senanayake, Hela Suwaya Organization (lead researcher on the 2014 paper) – Additional research unknown, a full bio for this author was not found.
Sisira Siribaddana, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka (lead researcher on the 2015 paper) – Tropical medicine, chronic kidney disease, snake bites, diabetes, complementary and alternative medicine, and bioethics.
Dr. Gunatilake has strong opinions about glyphosate. He “describes the deadly chemical as an octopus with poisonous tentacles reaching far and wide” as breathily reported in a Daily Mirror article, Glyphosate without adjuvants not very useful. Dr. Jayasumana also has some strong opinions, even testifying at the so-called “Monsanto Tribunal” that use of glyphosate has caused “ecocide”.
Dr. Senanayake is the founder of “Hela Healing“, which sells purportedly medicinal rice at many pharmacies and stores in Sri Lanka. In 2014, Dr. Senanayake was recognized by the first lady of Sri Lanka for her work on chronic kidney disease, as reported in Priyantha Senanayake awarded as a [heroine]. According to May God Natha help agriculture ministry!, she conducted “black magic” for the agriculture minister, was personally “issuing orders to ministry officials”, and was providing rice to the education services ministry when the article was published in 2015. According to Programme held at the Ministry to promote herbal drink, she was also to provide “porridge drink” to the ministry of defense, including their military and national guard. As she is clearly a person of great influence in Sri Lanka, it is unclear why Dr. Senanayake was not included on the award. Note that some meaning or context may have been added or lost when source articles were translated to English; any change in meaning from the original was not intentional on Biofortified’s part.
According to the AAAS press release about the award, the two researchers “faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world.” I was not able to find independent verification of such death threats, though I am searching only in English.
Clearly, these two public health researchers want to protect public health and according to the announcement they did face “challenging circumstances”. So in that sense, they are deserving of this award. Unfortunately, they did not exemplify scientific responsibility in the conclusions that they drew.
Before continuing, I want to be clear – I’m not necessarily saying that researchers with unusual results should not be honored for perseverance in the face of adversity. No one should face death threats, no matter their research claims. Researchers should be free to seek funding and to attempt to publish results, even when they go against the overall consensus on a subject.
Glyphosate is an easy target
Glyphosate is a surprisingly controversial herbicide. The controversy is surprising because of how benign it is. As the SciMoms explain, like GMOs, glyphosate has become a scapegoat or proxy for many socio-economic issues in food, agriculture, and beyond.
Iida Ruishalme has published an extensive series about glyphosate if you would like to get into specifics. Briefly, animals, including humans, do not have the metabolic pathway affected by glyphosate. Dietary exposure of glyphosate is low. Even among the most exposed populations, glyphosate does not cause cancer. There has been limited evidence that glyphosate could be an endocrine disrupter, but it was not identified by an endocrine disrupting chemical by the US Environmental Protection Agency in their Tier 1 Screening Results and Tier 1 Assays: “there was no convincing evidence of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways.”
Use of glyphosate has increased over time. In Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use, Andrew Kniss showed that in the United States, “glyphosate accounted for 26% of maize, 43% of soybean and 45% of cotton herbicide applications” in 2014/2015. But, because of glyphosate’s low toxicity relative to other herbicides, it only contributed a small percentage of the chronic toxicity hazard in these crops.
Because of its prevalent use globally, glyphosate is an easy target. But in some ways, further replacement of other herbicides with glyphosate would further reduce overall risk.
If only chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) could be stopped by just removing glyphosate. But this hypothesis didn’t pan out in 2014, or today. Three recent reviews and meta-analyses tell us the full story.
CKDu currently occurs among agricultural workers in 5 areas of the world: North Central Province in Sri Lanka, Andhra Pradesh in India, Tunisia, El Minya in Egypt, and parts of El Salvador and Nicaragua. CKDu presents differently in each area and seems to be associated with different factors in each area as well, according to a 2017 review Endemic Nephropathy Around the World.
The reviewers also describe 2 previous unexplained chronic kidney disease epidemics with similar symptoms but that pre-date glyphosate. Itai-Itai disease in Japan, first identified in the 1910s, was found to be due to cadmium-contaminated crops. Balkan endemic nephropathy, first identified in the 1950s, was found to be due to accidentally consuming seeds from a toxic herb. Subsequent cases have been identified when people intentionally take certain toxic herbs as herbal remedies.
Pesticide exposures and chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology: an epidemiologic review, also from 2017, “performed a systematic review of epidemiologic studies that addressed associations between any indicator of pesticide exposure and any outcome measure of CKD.” They confirm that “existing studies provide scarce evidence for an association between pesticides and regional CKDu epidemics.” They suggest that more studies should be done.
Despite the lack of evidence for the hypothesis that glyphosate causes CKDu, Sri Lanka banned glyphosate in 2014, apparently in large part due to the work of the awardees. In 2015, the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka issued a Statement on the Banning of Glyphosate, suggesting that the evidence points to the need for clean water and medical care for people in the affected area, education about safe use of pesticides, and controls on the importation of sub-standard pesticides – all evidence-based measures. When we blame the wrong things for public health problems, people continue to get hurt.
The glyphosate ban decreased yields, increased erosion, and may have increased illegal use of pesticides, according to Ban on Glyphosate: Planters’ plea for an alternative. These problems are described again in Glyphosate ban must be lifted and many other articles. The ban was finally lifted in 2018. With this award emboldening anti-glyphosate activists, are we more or less likely to see evidence-based solutions now?
AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
At this time, we have little information about exactly what happened with this award. But we do know how the selection process works, according to AAAS:
Nominations should be sent via postal mail or email… All nominations are reviewed by a selection committee, which consists of five members chosen for diversity of background and sensitivity to the activities honored by this award. The committee’s selection must be endorsed by the AAAS Board of Directors at their fall meeting.
The first step is nomination, which begs the question of who submitted the nomination packet. It is entirely reasonable to imagine that some well-written letters extolling the virtue of supposedly ground-breaking research would sound very compelling to award committee members who are entirely unfamiliar with the field. Add information about persecution and death threats for their science and the story is still more compelling.
Selection
Given that this is the Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, you’d think the awardees are likely chosen by members of the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility (CSFR) or a committee they selected. This 15-person committee currently has 2 members with expertise in the biological sciences; they are both medical doctors. None have a background related to agriculture or pesticides. That said, they have an incredible diversity of research and expertise.
However, as CSFR member Matthew Brown describes, the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility does not have this task. Instead, the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights & Law Program (SRHRL) convenes the selection committee. SRHRL is run by a program staff of 5, including an assistant. None have a background related to agriculture or pesticides, or even biology or chemistry. Would they have chosen anyone with a background in these for the selection committee?
Due to their backgrounds, the program staff may have been unaware of or unable to see the controversy around glyphosate as it might have been presented in a nomination letter. But at least some of them should have been able to do a quick literature search for causes of CKDu (as I did for this post) and find that the researchers’ hypothesis was weak at best. If not able to do this themselves, they could have found some scientists who could evaluate the claims and research the background a bit before deciding upon an awardee.
Endorsement
Per the terms of the award, the AAAS Board of Directors endorsed the selection. The Board of 5 includes 2 biological scientists, both in medicine. These eminent leaders of science presumably reviewed the selection and decided it was an appropriate award. Like the program staff, the AAAS Board may have been unaware of the controversy around glyphosate. But again, they should be able to search the literature for confirmation of the nominees’ claims.
Promotion
As weed scientist Andrew Kniss pointed out on Twitter, there were many concerning phrases in AAAS’s announcement.
This wording is much stronger than warranted, when we consider both the paper being recognized and all of the other available research on glyphosate. I suspect this language came directly from the nomination packet.
The announcement for the award was written by a science writer from the AAAS Newsroom. Like the Committee and the AAAS Board, the writer may have been unaware of the controversy around glyphosate, but he could have searched for more information.
Disheartening disinformation
Altogether, this seems to have been a systemic lack of information-seeking and some confirmation bias, combined with as-yet unknown motivated nomination letter writers. While some on Twitter cried foul, I don’t see evidence that this was anything nefarious by AAAS. This award situation is new, but it’s part of an all too familiar narrative.
Writing about the glyphosate ban in Sri Lanka, Buddhi Marambe, weed scientist of the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka summarizes:
We have failed to look at issues taking the totality into consideration. The complex problems in agriculture have no single and simple answers, especially with regard to national level food security. Forces with political and spiritual ideologies have always succeeded in the recent past in over-ruling even the most basic scientific principles. This is a pathetic story.
The best way to ensure that everything from small awards to large grants to policy decisions and more are based on both social and scientific merit is to have different views represented at the table. In short, biologists, chemists, and more need to volunteer and be present where all of these things are discussed and decisions are made. When we do, we need to be open to listening to everyone, and work toward understanding the ethicists and sociologists. Working towards mutual understanding helps everyone.
This isn’t just about the 2019 AAAS Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award. The award is just another indicator for old, deep problems. The silos of “hard science” and “soft science” hurt all of science and all of society. Those working on technological applications often aren’t considering the societal implications of their work while those who are considering the societal implications might not have enough in-depth experience with the tech itself.
Unfortunately, researchers in the “hard sciences” often don’t volunteer for work in the “soft sciences”. Why would they? While we give lipservice to other things, the currency of academia is publications – not mentoring, not outreach, certainly not serving on award committees. Yet if there had been just one agronomist on this committee, the nomination could have been flagged.
There does seem to be a growing number of cross-trained scientists, which is encouraging – but anecdotally, we’re also finding trouble fitting into traditional careers that don’t reward “extracurricular” activities when we’re in research roles, yet we’re too experienced and too educated for many other roles.
This is where AAAS comes in. Instead of sweeping this award situation under the rug, how amazing would it be if they found ways to encourage silo breaking? If anyone has the power to advocate for new incentives for interdisciplinary work, it’s the world’s largest interdisciplinary scientific society. Ideas have already been developed, such as those presented in the 2018 paper Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research.
It would be easy enough to determine which Sections are under-represented. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, in 2016 there were 19,900 physicist and astronomer jobs, growing at a rate of 14%, while there were 43,000 agricultural and food scientist jobs, growing at a rate of 7%. AAAS could look at the current membership and provide incentives such as discounted membership and discounted meeting attendance to under-represented fields. Membership of $125 per year might not seem like much but it adds up when you consider various domain-specific societies that we must also belong to. AAAS could also encourage institutions to permit researchers to use grant funds to pay for membership, something that is not universally allowed.
On a related note, science communication is another area where AAAS could demonstrate leadership on the policy side. AAAS provides top-notch science communication training and events, and and they even have a Communication Toolkit on their website. The organization clearly sees value in scientists communicating with the public. But getting scientists excited about outreach doesn’t help much when there’s little to no reward for doing it. Changing performance evaluations to include outreach would show that this activity has value – and AAAS is one organization that could provide leadership and encourage institutional change.
AAAS has shown incredible leadership on many topics over the years, including taking major steps against harassment, advocating for human rights, training scientist diplomats, and much more. In that context, developing and implementing incentives for interdisciplinary involvement both inside and outside AAAS itself and helping those who are cross-trained to find roles that use their skills seems almost easy. Then next time there’s a questionable award nomination, it will be dealt with easily.
Editor’s note: Thanks to our commenters for providing needed information! Updated February 11, 2019 to add information about Priyantha Senanayake, and to elaborate on what AAAS could do differently to reduce such missteps in the future. Updated February, 14 2019 to correct how the selection committee is chosen, and to add a note about what AAAS could do to encourage scientists in science communication.
Biofortified 