Government shutdown’s lasting impacts

government shutdown

Recently, the United States endured the longest government shutdown in the nation’s history. For 35 days, without a federal budget passed by Congress and signed by the President, non-essential employees were furloughed and entire agencies were closed. The impacts of the shutdown were far-reaching, impacting the lives of many Americans, and still more people abroad. As the shutdown closed the offices of the USDA, FDA, National Science Foundation, and more, it caused great harm to scientific research, especially agricultural research.

One of the largest and most diverse agriculture-related scientific conferences, the Plant and Animal Genome XXVII Conference, was a microcosm of these impacts. Important sessions were canceled, researchers were blocked from attending, and meetings were missing important collaborators.

I sat down to talk about it with Jason Williams, the Assistant Director of External Collaborations and Lead of CyVerse EOT at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Williams found himself at the center of efforts to help the conference cope with the gaps in the program, and saw how much harm the shutdown caused to US science and its position in the international scientific community. The shutdown may be over now, but its impacts will persist.

Impacts on science and people

While my current research is federally-funded, it was not directly impacted by the shutdown. But colleagues at my institution and nearby agricultural research stations had their work interrupted. And I’ve seen the impacts of previous shutdowns at the USDA offices in Madison, WI, and Asheville, NC.

Funding and access to research facilities is not a faucet that you can turn on and off at will. Research works best when funding is a consistent stream that allows scientists to plan, conduct, present, and maintain their research. That especially goes for the live plants, animals, microbes, and more that must be kept alive! I guarantee that some scientists were sneaking into greenhouses, barns, and more to keep the shutdown from destroying their work, even though they were not getting paid.

The people who dedicate their lives to doing scientific research in service of the public were not only let down, demoralized, and directly harmed by the recent shutdown, so were farmers, travelers, voters, and anyone who benefits from investments in science. (Hint: that’s you.) Internationally, it lowers the reliability of US science, and that’s a barrier to progress that is far more real than the debated barrier that led to this event.

How did the shutdown affect your research? Your farm? Tell us about it in the comments.

More impacts of the government shutdown

Arctic Apples Update at SynBioBeta

Arctic Apples are coming out in stores this fall. These apples are genetically engineered not to turn brown when sliced or juiced. At the SynBioBeta conference in San Francisco, Karl Haro von Mogel sat down with Neal Carter, President of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which created the apple. Karl asked him questions about what customers thought about their new apples, where people can find them, the new varieties of Arctic Apples being developed, and if they are working on a non-browning avocado.

Learn more

To find out more about the Arctic Apple, see this Q/A from 2012, and this video interview from 2013. Our Sustaining Members also get access to the Members Exclusive Extended Interview, which is 27 minutes long. In the extended interview you’ll also hear about interactions between Genotype and Environment, licensing of apple varieties, and whether we might also see Arctic Apples in McDonalds!
Go here for more information on Member Premiums:
https://atomic-temporary-156907985.wpcomstaging.com/support/membership/

Arctic Apples Update at SynBioBeta – Members Exclusive Extended Interview

Arctic Apples are coming out in stores this fall. These apples are genetically engineered not to turn brown when sliced or juiced. At the SynBioBeta conference in San Francisco, Karl Haro von Mogel sat down with Neal Carter, President of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which created the apple. Karl asked him questions about what customers thought about their new apples, where people can find them, the new varieties of Arctic Apples being developed, and if they are working on a non-browning avocado. In this extended interview you’ll also hear about interactions between Genotype and Environment, licensing of apple varieties, and whether we might also see Arctic Apples in McDonalds!


This video contains the full 27-minute interview, available only for our Sustaining Members.
Thank you for being a Sustaining Member! Go here for more information on Member Premiums:
https://atomic-temporary-156907985.wpcomstaging.com/support/membership/
To find out more about the Arctic Apple, see this Q/A from 2012, and this video interview from 2013.

Cooking video series to launch!

Here at Biology Fortified, we’ve got a lot of projects going on. From databases of research, to infographics, blog posts, citizen science and more, we do what we do because we love science and we want more people to understand and appreciate it as well. We have only been able to accomplish what we have thanks to support from our readers and fans, as well as a couple small competitive grants. In the past year, we introduced a monthly membership program that enables us to have the resources to sustain this work and start bigger projects. Continue reading “Cooking video series to launch!”

Monsanto, Monsanto, blah blah breast milk, Monsanto

Written by Bill Price

shelley-mcguire-5x7-1
Dr. Shelley McGuire, the lead author of the study that found that glyphosate was not detectable in human breast milk. Credit: Shelley McGuire

Last spring, I was invited to contribute to a project involving several talented researchers regarding the detection of the herbicide glyphosate in human breast milk. While such a request would normally be in the scope and expectations of my job, I was excited to help as I thought the subject was relevant, topical and interesting. The subject itself, however, was controversial and had received a large amount of media play as well as heated conversation online. This is because glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide sprayed on many genetically engineered (GMO) crops, so it has become a focal point for scientists and activists alike. The study found that glyphosate was not detectable in breast milk – which is good news – but these findings have been greeted with cynicism even though it has been confirmed by multiple independent labs.
Early on, the lead author, Dr. Michelle McGuire, and all the co-authors readily agreed that all aspects of the work should be as transparent as possible. This was especially relevant as the work came on the heels of several accusations of hidden conflicts of interest (COI) regarding work in biotech and agricultural research in general. The breast milk study had also required expertise in chemical detection of glyphosate, to which the researchers had reached out to arguably the world authorities on glyphosate, the scientists at Monsanto. All of this combined made it obvious that any publication should thoroughly document any and all potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, when the work was recently published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (PDF file), it was made Open Access, all data was published with the article, and a lengthy full disclosure of COI was given:

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—MKM, MAM, DAG, and JLV: conceptualized and designed the study; MKM and DAG: designed the glyphosate exposure questionnaire; MKM: oversaw sample and data collection; JMC and KAL: collected the samples and administered the questionnaires; PKJ: over- saw the analysis of the samples at Monsanto; WJP and BS: carried out the statistical analysis; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript. In 2014, MKM and MAM each received a $10,000 unrestricted research gift from Monsanto; these funds were used to support their research related to human and bovine lactation. These funds were neither needed for nor used to cover the costs associated with the project described in this article, because the milk was already being collected for another project funded by the National Science Foundation (1344288) related to international variation in human milk composition and because additional expenditures associated with the collection of urine samples were negligible. All costs associated with the chemical analysis of milk and urine samples at both Monsanto and Covance were paid for directly by Monsanto. MKM and MAM were once reimbursed for costs associated with economy travel and basic accommodations incurred for a trip they made to St. Louis, Missouri, to discuss study design and assay development with coauthors DAG, PKJ, and JLV at Monsanto. DAG, PKJ, and JLV are employees of Monsanto, which manufactures glyphosate. None of the other authors reported a conflict of interest related to the study.

Dr. Emily Willingham
Dr. Emily Willingham, scientist and science communicator, raised doubts about the study based on COI, pushing discussion of independent confirmation to the end of her article. Credit: Emily Willingham (Twitter)

Everyone involved with this project was aware of its potential to spark controversy. Following presentation of this work at a professional conference in the summer of 2015, Dr. McGuire found herself at the center of a storm of accusations, information requests, and battling adversaries. So it was not unexpected when a colleague sent me notice of an article last week proclaiming: “Monsanto-Linked Study Finds No Monsanto-Linked Herbicide Glyphosate In Breast Milk”. Such headlines are the standard fair for activist sites intending to attract readers and the research team had fully expected to see this kind of response. The real surprise, however, came from who wrote the article, Dr. Emily Willingham. Dr. Willingham has been a respected writer on science subjects, particularly on issues dealing with autism, which made the headline somewhat unexpected. It did not stop there, however. The article itself opened with:
 

“The study, however, is weighted with conflicts of interest that include having three Monsanto employees as authors. The first two authors also have received grants from Monsanto, and the costs of the chemical analyses for the study were covered by Monsanto.”

Further in the article, she continues:

“If we take the advice above to consider the source, this study looks like a big ol’ slumber party involving the journal, the society associated with it, their spokesperson and Monsanto. A read of the conflict-of-interest statement on the McGuire et al. paper sets a number of red flags a-waving”

Upon apparent objections in the comments, this was later updated to:

“If we take the advice above to “consider the source,” the optics on this study could look suspect, involving the journal, the society associated with it, a ”spokesperson” and Monsanto. A read of the conflict-of-interest statement on the McGuire et al. paper will undoubtedly set red flags a-waving for some people”

Emily2
While the initial statement was toned down, it was clear she was calling into question the legitimacy of the work, not to mention the integrity of the researchers, a professional organization, and the journal itself. Take that as you will, it is her prerogative. It is hard, however, to reconcile these words with those she wrote admonishing others on COI, just six months earlier:
On Twitter she has been a strident advocate of COI disclosure, often taking to task those who questioned it. It was, after all, the best thing to do and would give the best impression. This was emphasized again in a 2015 article
on Forbes where she states:

“To avoid the distraction of suspicion, scientists who genuinely want science to have a voice should make quite clear which baggage they bring to the discussion. Openness on all sides about potential bias clears the way to real scientific engagement.”

Emily1
Yet here we were, doing just that only to turn around and be sucker punched by the exact same COI advocate for evidently having the wrong associations. In the end, the COI simply gave her a bigger target to aim at. “Real scientific engagement” apparently wasn’t on the menu this time around. So much for the argument of perception and openness.
But there was more. In 2012 Dr. Willingham had also written the “5 Changes Consumers Want To See In Science News”. Number one on that list:
1. Stop with sensationalist headlines. It was the top complaint, something one commenter described as “the worst offense” (although apparently, something else below requires the death penalty). Quit with the sensationalism already, they say. I know. That’s not gonna happen because headlines pull clicks and clicks drive revenue. So I’ll stick with my standing advice to readers: Skip the headline.”
“Stop with the sensationalist headlines”. To be honest, I actually laughed when I read that and I don’t think I need to point back to the “click bait” headline of her recent article to demonstrate the hypocrisy. It is clear there is a “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality operating here. By emphasizing Monsanto and COI over the science and its independent confirmation (discussed only at the end of the second page of the article), Dr. Willingham effectively raised doubts about the findings of the study using sensationalist tactics. Knowing that many people will tend not to read past the first page, wouldn’t it have been more proper to put greater emphasis on the fact that this finding has been confirmed by multiple groups at the beginning of the article?
What does all this matter to me? I’m an old dog in this game and I can, even if begrudgingly, adapt to these “new rules” of extreme disclosure for the years I have left in research. I do, however, have concern for younger researchers out there. Every day I see bright, enthusiastic, motivated people who want to do good science and want to do it right. They rightfully want to define their own standards and expectations for communicating their work, yet they need to do so in an environment where traditional public funding is increasingly scarce and cooperation with outside funding sources is openly encouraged and even expected. They are also often the target audience for self-defined SciComm experts. To these scientists, I simply offer this as a cautionary tale. Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, even if it comes from proclaimed and respected “authorities”. COI may be necessary, but it is no shield. Everything you say (or don’t) can and will be used against you.
For me, I will stick to a tried and true principle. Sure, we can play along with the disclosure-perception game, but no matter what these pundits tell you, the data, the science, and the methods can and do speak for themselves. They always have and they always will. They are immutable to all except more data and more evidence. In this I trust. I would hope you will too.

Written by Guest Expert

Bill Price has a PhD in plant science. He has worked in agricultural research for nearly 40 years and is currently a statistician in the College of Agriculture at the University of Idaho. His work includes diverse topics including but not limited to dairy science, human nutrition, weed science, and benthic microbiology.

Join The GMO Corn Experiment!

32600_459043984170889_423647527_n
A photograph of one experiment. Copyright: Paul Fonder

Do squirrels and other wild animals avoid GMOs? If you open up your favorite search engine to find out an answer to this question, you will find that many people have been curious about this question. For so many people, it would be a simple question to test scientifically – if they had the right materials. Now Biology Fortified is happy to announce that hundreds of people, from adults to kids and schools can be a part of one massive scientific experiment to find out the answer to this question.
Genetically engineered crops, often just called GMOs, have been grown and eaten for 20 years. The topic of transferring DNA from one organism into another brings excitement in some and caution in others. There are many questions that have been raised about safety, environmental impact, and more, and study after study has been done and published to address those questions.
Now Google ‘GMO corn experiment’ or ‘GMO corn squirrels’ and you will find that some say that animals can sense something different about genetically engineered corn and avoid eating it if they can. Some people have even put this question to the test by doing their own experiment to find out! Ears of GMO and non-GMO corn have been placed side-by-side to find out if one ear gets eaten and the other does not.
The results of these anecdotal reports are mixed. Some report that the GMO corn is avoided, while others (including this video) report that there is no difference. Have there been any scientific studies that examine this question? Not one that I can find. That’s why we decided to do one, but we’re not going to do it on our own. We’re going to do this experiment with you – as the first ever Citizen Science experiment to test popular claims about GMOs! Continue reading “Join The GMO Corn Experiment!”

Marching against Chipotle’s GMO myths

cultivate01
Karl and Frank stake out their territory at the dandelion fountain at Loring Park in Minneapolis.

Today, Chipotle Mexican Grill is putting on a show in Minneapolis. Their Cultivate Festival is a public relations event that combines food, drink, music, chefs, and myths served with a side of fear, I mean guac. Attendees can choose to walk through four information booths with the promise of a free burrito at the end, which sounds great except these booths contain carefully crafted and misleading invectives against food, farming, and science. In response, the March Against Myths (MAMyths), a grassroots movement whose mission is to combat myths with facts, penned an open letter to Chipotle to ask them to correct the false and misleading statements they make about genetically engineered crops (GMOs), which was received, acknowledged, and ignored. Today, MAMyths is coming to the Chipotle Cultivate Festival to correct the misinformation and be a resource for the public to learn more about GMOs. Today, we’re marching against Chipotle’s GMO Myths. Continue reading “Marching against Chipotle’s GMO myths”

April Fools: FoIA requests expand to all published academic GMO research

Editor’s Note: The following post was part of our 2015 April Fools prank on our readers. A lot of people had fun reading and joking about it. If you were worried about so many researchers being harassed you can now relax, but if you were a graduate student looking forward to a free weekly buffet – we’re sorry to disappoint you!
Although this was a prank, FoIA requests are currently being abused to harass scientists with the goal of undermining science communicators. You can find out more about this issue here and we encourage you to sign this letter of support!
FOIA2000By William Harvey, M.D. (Born April 1st, 1578)

Previously, it was reported that 14 Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests had been filed seeking the correspondence of academic scientists and professors who were actively involved in outreach and public education about genetically engineered crops. The Biofortified Blog has recently learned that a second and much more extensive wave of FoIA requests has been filed – potentially affecting thousands of academic scientists and graduate students.
The second wave of FoIA requests, now being dubbed a “Climategate 3.0“, or “Biogate 2.0” or “GMOGate 1.0 beta” by various sources, seeks information about the totality of published academic research on genetically engineered (GMO) crops. The requests are exhaustive, covering all of the background research, grant proposals, experimental design and data, and results and conclusions of nearly 2,000 studies that have been conducted on GMOs. The total number of FoIAs filed is still being determined, but sources have confirmed that they were filed by the US Right Two Know (USR2K) organization, a nonprofit funded by the cattle manure-based fertilizer industry. Continue reading “April Fools: FoIA requests expand to all published academic GMO research”

Silencing Public Scientists

Written by Kevin Folta

folta-badassLast week I received a FOIA request that all of my emails bearing certain terms were going to be obtained and turned over to an activist group.  US-RTK, a San Francisco-based activist group, namely Gary Ruskin, wanted to know my ties to Big Ag and their PR arm.
The first thing I did was pick up a phone, call Gary Ruskin, and say, “What can I tell you?”
We spoke for 10 minutes, he seems like a decent guy, but what’s the deal with assuming that I’m guilty of something before even talking?  I’m not one to do things the hard way, the expensive way.  I’m glad to talk openly about anything.
Those closer to the situation tell me I’m naive, and that US-RTK wants nothing more than to see me removed from the discussion on ag biotech.  In their estimation, US-RTK does not just want truth, they want words.  They want emails.  It is not about a scientists and what he or she does– it is how they can make public records into something they are not.
This is an expensive fishing trip to harm public science. Continue reading “Silencing Public Scientists”

Thomas Lang makes music for Frank N. Foode™

thomaslang-900As you know, we’re working on the music for our educational video series, Cooking with Frank N. Foode™, and we are seeking donations to help fund this important part of our new outreach project. Next, I want to introduce you to Thomas Lang, who composed the music for this series. We knew it would be a challenge to create music that fits the topics we would talk about on the show, and bring out both the science and the character of Frank N. Foode™. We were fortunate to not have to look very far to find Tom.
Several years ago, Ariela and I were already acquainted with Tom while he was a composition graduate student at UW-Madison. He worked in the campus music library, and he was a very helpful tutor and a fantastic composer, we soon learned. Three years ago we attended a concert that featured his award-winning piece, Music for Orchestra in However Many Incarnations, which was inspired by actors who played Dr. Who in Doctor Who. Continue reading “Thomas Lang makes music for Frank N. Foode™”