Die CO₂-Pumpe der Meere wird immer schwächer. Durch Kalken der Ozeane soll sie auf Touren ­gebracht werden. Doch mögliche Konsequenzen sind unerforscht.

WOZ - Die Wochenzeitung Reinhard Wolff

Treibhausgase reduzieren war gestern - Kalken der Ozeane lautet das Rezept für morgen. Damit könne die Erwärmung der Erdatmosphäre ganz ohne neue Techniken, Einsparungen und Konsumverzicht gestoppt werden. Mehr noch: Der Kohlendioxidgehalt der Atmosphäre liesse sich sogar auf vorindustrielles Niveau senken. «Cquestrate» verspricht diesen Zauber, ist bislang aber erst eine Idee. Doch der Ölkonzern Shell hat Forschungsgelder bereitgestellt, um ihre praktische Umsetzung zu testen.

Einmal mehr sollen die Ozeane das Kohlendioxid schlucken. Das tun sie sowieso schon. Zusammen mit der Bio­sphäre, der anderen grossen «CO₂-Senke» der Erde, speichern die Meere die Hälfte des jährlich vom Menschen verursachten CO₂. Jedenfalls ­zeitweise, dank eines Effekts namens physikalische CO₂-Pumpe. Der hat mit den weltweiten Meeresströmungen zu tun: Warmes Wasser strömt an der Oberfläche in Richtung Nord- und Südpol und nimmt dabei CO₂ aus der Luft auf, das sich im Wasser zu Kohlensäure löst. In der Nähe der Pole kühlt das Wasser ab, wird dadurch schwerer und sinkt auf den Meeresgrund, wo es wieder zurückströmt. Das mitgeführte, gelöste CO₂ kann Jahrhunderte lang in den Tiefen verbleiben, bevor es wieder an die Oberfläche gelangt. Allerdings wird dieser Effekt immer schwächer: Die Aufnahmefähigkeit des Meerwassers für CO₂ sinkt mit fortschreitendem CO₂-Anstieg.

Die Pumpe wiederbeleben

Eine britische Studie schlug vor einigen Monaten Alarm. Messungen im Nordatlantik ergaben, dass die Leis­tungsfähigkeit der CO₂-Pumpe im Zeitraum von 1995 bis 2005 um die Hälfte gesunken sei. Die Ozeane könnten also bald mit den von Menschen freigesetzten Emissionen gesättigt sein. Sie könnten nicht mehr als Senke dienen, und der Treibhauseffekt würde beschleunigt.

Hier setzt Tim Kruger, der Kopf hinter der Cquestrate-Idee, an: Er will die CO₂-Pumpe der Weltmeere wieder auf Touren bringen. Die Ozeane verlieren ihre Fähigkeit zur zeitweisen CO₂-Speicherung, weil sie immer saurer werden. Dem könne entgegengewirkt werden, indem man basischen Kalk in die Meere einbringt und damit deren Säuregehalt senkt.

weiterlesen

]]> http://apoptotic.wordpress.com/?p=29 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:18:47 +0000 apoptotic http://apoptotic.wordpress.com/?p=29 It seems I got a lot of response on Algae as a Biofuel crop.

http://apoptotic.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/whats-the-deal-with-biofuels/

I have gathered togeather a number of videos on the subject, culled from youtube and google video.

A history channel video:

Here is a long feature length lecture, from scripps, explaining Algae in general from the series on "Perspectives in Oceanography" Very Informative.

"Power of green" on algae:

Here is a decent enough article, intervioewing Craig Harting of Global Green Solutions.

Another Interview, this time with the VP of Global Green Solutions:

Making hydrogen from sunlight:

May 21, 2008: David James explains how to process algae, into three different types of green fuels, using a gasification process. Green gasoline, green diesel and biodiesel can all be produced from the same algae feedstock.

Here is an EXTREMELY interesting lecture by Craig Venter on creating custom made life. This is one of the TED talks. I drew on this article heavily for my previous article.

Here is an interesting, in depth look at algae as a fuel:

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

See my previous article for a more in depth look at biofuels and algae:

http://apoptotic.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/whats-the-deal-with-biofuels/

Decoding and recoding life

To really read DNA accurately and understand it thoroughly, you need to be able to write it from scratch and make it live, Venter explained.

His sequencing the first diploid human genome (with the genes from both parents) last year showed there is much more genetic variation between humans than first thought. His current goal is to fully sequence 10,000 humans and bring the price for each sequence down to $1,000. With that data, his says, “We’ll begin to really learn what’s nature and what’s nurture.”“

Microbes make up one half of the Earth’s biomass.” Venter’s shotgun sequencing of open-ocean microbial samples revealed that every milliliter of ocean has one million bacteria and archaea and ten million viruses even in supposedly barren waters. Taking samples on a round-the-world sailing trip showed that every 200 miles the genes in the microbes are 85% different.

“Microbes dominate evolutionary diversity,” Venter said. Some 50,000 major gene familes have been discovered. Humans and other complex animals have a small fraction of that in our own genes, but the “microbiome” of our onboard microbes carry the full richness. Only 1/10th of the cells in a human are human; the rest are microbes. There are 1,000 species in our mouths, another 1,000 in our guts, another 500 on our skins, and those with vaginas have yet another 500 species.

The Long Now Blog » Blog Archive » Craig Venter “Joining 3.5 Billion Years of Microbial Invention”

MP3 audio

The Guardian only scratches the surface of the brave new world of DNA or 'wet' coding.  The question of whether genes can replace silicon is a symptom of the fact that biology and computing are converging at a surprising rate.  Code is the key.  Computers work in binary, 1s and 0s.  DNA works in codes built of four letters, GATC.  (Remember the film Gattaca ?  Turns out that's a clever title.)  If we can learn and harness that code we can reprogram DNA, which is at once brilliant and absolutely terrifying.

One man leading the way in genetic coding is Craig Venter.  You may not know the name now, but I'm pretty sure everyone on the planet will in 20 years or less.  He's going to be richer than Bill Gates.  His company is currently working on a synthetic life-form that will feed on CO2 and excrete fuel.  His response to a man who asked if he was playing God?

'My dear sir, I'm not playing.'

The mighty TED will explain all this better than me.  Forgive me if I fall back to TED several times in my posts.  I urge everyone to go and have look around their video archive.  It's more informative and inspirational than anything on TV.  Except David Attenborough (all hail).

Juan Enriquez knows about the future of code:

Craig Venter is already digitising DNA:

and Alan Russell wants to regenerate our bodies:

Last couple of months I've been quite busy with writing PhD thesis and few other projects, but also I was trying to start an open project balancing between academia and industry. This balance sounds like an opportunity, but in fact it was an issue instead. The issue wasn't in the money - I was lucky to find people willing to help me in getting funding. The issue was rather in what I need to give away in exchange for the money - openness, control over the project or all intellectual property rights. Being already established scientist or a business person would solve such issues immediately, but I am still PhD student, so I need to face it. And while I have still plenty of people to talk to (I think it will take another month or two), that left me thinking about career on the border between industry and academia.

On both sides, in academia and industry, career path (and I'm not talking here only about having a job, but also about starting a business by yourself) is somehow clear and one can get a significant help along the way, but I haven't found such clear path on the border between these two. Open source business model seems to work well mostly for very established players (such as Apache or RedHat) - growing in such model looks much more difficult than on either of sides. Probably Antony Williams from ChemSpider (who was one of the people that inspired and encouraged me to follow this path) would say much more in here, especially how easy (is not) to get a financial support for working on a project like ChemSpider.

I don't think about working in one or the other environment anymore. Being freelancing scientist has a lot of good sides and growing wouldn't be an issue (for example I have enough collaborations and ideas to cover financially next 3-4 years from grants; publications would follow). But, as I wrote before,some of the projects I'd love to work on are unlikely to be funded in academic system. On the other hand, openness is too important for me to give it away, so only a merger of these two sounds interesting. There are few examples of successful merging industry and academia, but they all seem to operate on different principles, compared to my recent attempts. Craig Venter's model was as far as I know most of the time double-sided - he had a non-profit search unit and a company that commercialized its discoveries. Pretty similar has also David E. Shaw. So I have started to wonder if sticking to borderline is actually the very best idea. Being involved on two fronts at the same time sounds pretty overwhelming, but so far these are the only examples when this whole idea seems to work. Are you aware of any others?

My other hope is that new ways of growing on the borderline will very soon emerge. There's quite a lot happening right now on the front of supporting innovations (including open models), so maybe over there I will find my niche. We'll see.

(The image above is not my desk. While I work in a home office, mine doesn't look so clean.)

Further reading:

A microfunding system for research and innovation.

Pharma looks at new ways of innovate.

Discussion around business model around Open Data is building up.

The old way of mate selection and reproduction worked well enough until humans developed super weapons but now with that physical possibility  clearly within our technical ability it now becomes possible for us to exterminate our own species. But as discussed earlier the policy of survive and outbreed your competition can not work permanently with a species possessing such abilities and such weapons. The problem becomes unsolvable when there is any group of people with the unlimited ability to breed without external restrictions. All species other than ourselves have outside limitations imposed upon them. Actually, we do too but they are only famine, homicide and birth control. Famine and homicide are the only usual external options at play but unfortunately they lead to boom and bust cycles and with super weapons now available these will be absolutely disastrous.

The other option is the one induced by human reason and control and it means that the vast majority of women would be limited to two children. This restriction would be imposed on every woman in the world. This new way of relating to the reproduction of the species is so different from all other plants, animals and in fact all other living things that these new human derived creatures might even be called a new life form. They are operating on a new set of operating principles from all other creatures which have gone before. To some degree domesticated plants and animals are already there, although they are not self controlled but rather they are controlled by outside forces. In this case it isn't natural forces but the controlling forces of humans. The humans would be controlling themselves and this is what makes them into a new species — in fact a new life form.

It is a self-imposed external restriction and that is what makes the creatures that come into being not just a new slightly modified human species but into a whole new life form. It can choose to reproduce not only what it likes in its present genome but can willfully decide upon a new direction to go. The law that is successful in creating and imposing these limitations upon humanity will over the next one hundred thousand years have profound and unknowable results. Because the direction of those changes will be thoughtfully considered the results should be even more desirable than those of that first conversation a hundred thousand years ago.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 3.0 License.

"Wolf! Help! Wolf!" cried the boy.

"It serves you right," spoke the wolf, "for you lied before and now will not be believed. So it is that you become my meal while the village sleeps." And the wolf ate boy and his flock. The moral of the tale has been told as follows:

Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth.

And so we find the Malthus' incorrect prediction of global overpopulation remembered whenever anyone claims that natural resources may be overstretched. It's like they're cackling, "Malthus cried wolf before, and there turned out to be none. So there's no wolf today either."

Of course this is totally wrong. The point that needs to be remembered is that the boy and the flock eventually were eaten by the wolf. Likewise with Peak Oil, we hear old timers especially harken back to the Seventies (a very different situation from today's) and claim that the oil market in those times was just a boy crying wolf for amusement. And now the market is crying wolf again, they say, and they've seen it before and there's no reason to worry. But it's not because a previous prediction about something was wrong that a present prediction is also.

This is the problem of induction. You go to a town and the first three cars you see drive down the road are red. Do you conclude that all the cars in the town are red? So when I hear people say, about climate change or oil scarcity or overpopulation, that people incorrectly predicted these problems in the past a few times, so it won't be a problem in the future, I have to stand there in amazement and wonder at their lack of imagination.

I don't mean to sound overly pessimistic. In fact I am decently optimistic about the future. I think we can get past oil troubles, and get beyond oil as a monopoly transport energy source. I look to the likes of Craig Venter's Synthetic Genomics as leading the way. Or at sugarcane ethanol and possibly natural gas liquids as transitional means away from oil. I believe in technology, and in potential for exponential progress.

I thought about the Boy Who Cried Wolf again yesterday, watching Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research fame on Charlie Rose's website.

Mr Yergin, a fine writer of oil's history, doesn't believe in any peak oil-type scenario. He thinks we'll have oil forever. Indeed he claims we'll have an infinite supply of oil. Why and how? Because, he says, there have been predictions about running out of oil in the past and they were wrong. But that's the inductive reasoning fallacy par excellence. He uses the "that boy's already cried wolf" shortcut instead of looking at things on their merits.

Now, sometimes, in fact frequently, inductive reasoning is absolutely crucial, especially for approaching the future. But we have to be careful. To use a large statistical sample if possible, and to consider the logic and try to perceive our own biases. For example, it's just possible that I could say that since Daniel Yergin has been consistently wrong on oil prices for the past five years, that he's not a reliable source of foresight and is better left as a historian and journalist. That would be reasonable induction, I believe. But to claim that because he was wrong in the past he will be wrong in the future, that's unreasonable induction, precisely the sort he uses to refute peak oil-like scenarios.

By the way if you watch his previous Charlie Rose segment, when oil was passing $45 Yergin was of a mind that oil would surely fall back to the thirties. I was at that time already very concerned about peak oil, I'd seen enough of peak oil theory that had the smell of a truth which is still denied, the same sense I'd had years earlier when I learned about the crackpot theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution, or about other developments and predictions which seem very plausible but are not yet accepted. Analysts can have a hard time sitting on the same side as the fringe-type folks who often accompany new discoveries or thoughts and who may actually create resistance against those new thoughts. Climate change is another good example, as more conservative people abhorred the notion of siding with tree hugging pot smoking environmentalists and for that reason more than any other perhaps allowed themselves to be blinded. They didn't want to seem like anti-progress crackpots. They looked at people driving a Prius as self-righteous pretenders, while they drove huge wasteful SUVs that helped US gasoline demand surge. OK, end of rant for now.

"How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! - Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips... I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.

- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein.

It was the summer of 1816 when Mary Shelley first dreamt up this image. Her husband and she went to go visit their friend in Switzerland - Lord Byron. Due to the dreary weather they were confined to the indoors and shared ghost stories. For Mary's entire life she was surrounded by some of the most famous writers in British literature - both her parents, her husband, and her friend Lord Byron all went down in British history. So, to no surprise, during this dreary summer the idea came up that everybody would create their own ghost story. Finally she dreamed the image quoted above, as she explains in the introduction of the third edition of Frankenstein:

I saw - with shut eyes but acute mental vision - I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.

For it was not a ghost story that really shook Mary to her bones. Mary was concerned about the concept of mankind playing God. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. She was questioning the dark corridors that science could lead us down. The idea that some people would try and use science to do the work of nature, and in fact replace nature, was alive in Mary Shelley's mind as she wrote the famous words of Frankenstein.

Of course in 1816 it was not biotechnology or transgenics Mary Shelley had in mind - but electricity. While many scientists worked diligently to help pave the way to the creation of all benefits electricity has given us, many scientists felt that within electricity the elixir to life was hidden. The possibilities were endless in many scientists mind - electricity could've been the key to bring back the dead. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns us about using crude knowledge of science to try and follow a pipe dream, such as Dr. Victor Frankenstein did. You see - in Frankenstein's mind he was certain what he was building was going to be a beautiful, perfect creature, but as soon as he had succeeded in what he was pushing for so long he becomes aghast at what he had created and tried to run from his own creation, but what he created was irrevocable and ultimately the death of him.

In the book Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering on a Biotech Planet by Denise Caruso, I see a Mary Shelley of the 21st Century. The mysticism of electricity is long dead - Since Mary's masterpiece physicists have found a way to link it magnetism and most other forces of the Universe, we have harnessed its power to energize virtually every household and machine product. It was done collaboratively for the public good and today we couldn't function at the level of society we do without the gift of science and the lack of greed that consumed them. Sure - we could find a more efficient way to transport it among other things but civilization has democratically agreed electricity has been conquered and put to its most efficient use. But science is never out of new boundaries. Today it's genetics and biotechnology. Denise Caruso assesses risk and she tries to make sure that others assess risk properly. Of course nobody will take eloquent, centuries-old, fiction as warnings anymore (though many would do us some good), so Denise Caruso writes a logical, referenced-reinforced, and deeply interesting book on how we should assess risk with technology we do not understand yet. And if you don't have time to read the book, you should read this entry though it's long, because it's shorter than the book. I use both information provided by her and information I've found on my own as my references which are linked along the way (please click, lots of work involved)

So What Is Biotechnology and Transgenics?

Don't feel dumb. That's a fair question to ask - I know you're not a scientist (most likely). Imagine you are about to have a child and it is born with a disease that will severely impact his life - now imagine that a doctor could use genetic engineering to remove that disease. Pretty cool, huh? The doctor would simply replace the "broken" gene with a healthy one and your child would have averted the disease. But let's not stop there - Imagine if you could alter genes in delicious fruits and vegetables so that they could stay fresh 10 times longer to reduce the impact on the planet? I mean - we simply are treating the gene that makes that fruit or vegetable rot just like the gene that was going to cripple your child for life - we just need to put a gene that keeps freshness longer - what difference does it make what gene we change, so long as it benefits us? I mean don't even stop there, let your imagination come off the reel here - what if we could infuse some common, mass produced food, like bread, with a bunch of essential nutrients and send it to poor countries to feed their teeming famished? And why deal with animals if we could just grow their body parts from DNA and only produce the profitable and delicious parts? And what if we could create species as we pleased with whatever clever DNA already exists from any species on the planet? We could have pigs that glow and fish that grow super fast and we could design our children to look exactly like we wanted, and if we want them to be athletic, they can be athletic, and if we want them beautiful, they can be beautiful - the sky is the limit!

Now take everything written above and stick it in your pipe because this is our current pipe dream. This is the early 21st century's electricity.  Biotechnology and Transgenics have achieved most of those things above to some or partial success. If they have not achieved them they are promised to come in the future by those researching. But they are in their infancy and the corporations conducting research are fervent believers that biotechnology and transgenics are the answer to most, if not all, of our future problems. But when they finally achieve their idea of success with biotechnology - will they awake to a horror not unlike Frankenstein's monster?

Anybody can dismiss that question as absurd. But I am a true believer that any unknown front in science should be objectively risk-assessed so we're not blindsided with something we could have predicted - because the story of Frankenstein is a question: At what point does your dream become your nightmare? Where do we draw the line? How do we know? and who decides? On the fronts of biotechnology and transgenics these questions are falling to the wayside for the simple motivation of profit - which I will support with evidence further on.

So - again - what is transgenics? We know it has the capacity to be both our dream and our nightmare, but what is actually the process? Well here goes - I'm no geneticist, but it seems to be a relatively simple concept: I've read it likened to "cutting" the desired traits from gene A (let's say a trait that make honey bees docile) and "pasting" the trait into the DNA code of gene B (let's say the aggressive Africanized honey bee).  The result? Docile Africanized honeybees - or so we'd hope. As we know, things are not always as simple as they sound.

Let me try and magnify the risks as "cutting and pasting" makes it sound like a 2nd grader could do it. Instead of collecting body organs geneticists find the proper components to infect the desired trait into the plant or animal victim.

That's right - infect. Because essentially that is what transgenics could be described as in one single word - infection. And that holds certain negative preconceptions - as it should - infection indicates a foreign body invading a natural environment with the intent to permanantly change that environment. To infect holds significant risk alone. When your body becomes infected with a disease, the disease is attempting to take over your body by force, your body is not okay with just naturally accepting it and your body wants to fight it off. In transgenics all of these things need to be overcome so the infection wins. Because the intent is to infect the body with something good as opposed to something bad.

If you're a fan of zombie movies - I Am Legend provides an excellent example of this. If you listen to how the zombies came to be it was the result of something totally unexpected - a cure for AIDS. And in the movie the person who designed the "cure" explains a very similar process about infection. But ultimately there were no long-term studies done on this "cure" and the infection ended up becoming extremely aggressive as well as airborne infecting virtually everybody with extremely disastrous results. Another movie (and video game) Resident Evil creates a post-apocalyptic world via zombies that came about through a highly secure DNA testing facility having a disease released using the same processes described here.

While it is unlikely this infectious process will turn us all into zombies, it is likely that there could be unforeseen consequences to infecting living beings with "better" qualities. The main reason being that infectious items are aggressive and accomplish their needs through means of force, not through a working symbiotic relationship.

So how do they infect, for example, a crop of plants to become resistant to weed killer? Well they take a soy plant, for example, and now they have to find out a way to stop it from being harmed when it is sprayed with glyphosate (aka weed killer). So what is glyphosate resistent? Salmonella. However since we don't want the gastroenteritis that comes with it, we just extract the good part, the part that happens to be resistent to weed killer.  And now, how do we get it into the soy plant? Now that we have the cargo we have to deliver the goods. So we take a little bit of E. Coli to use as the vessel to deliver and infect the soy plant on a DNA level. And, in addition Denise Caruso explains:

There are generally other bits of DNA included in transgenic cassettes that are designed to perform various other functions, like impelling the target protein to express in certain parts of the plant (or animal) and not in others. In Roundup Ready, this bit of genetic material comes from a petunia, for example. Until recently, virtually all commercial transgenic cassettes have also included a sequence of antibiotic resistant DNA from Streptococcus bacterium.

Can anyone not see Dr. Frankenstein's parallel? We are taking the best parts of life, much like Dr. Frankenstein gave his monster the best parts of a human. But when they come together and work, what do they produce? Has mankind out-done nature or "God" as Mary Shelley put it? The roundup ready soy we just learned the basics of transgenics on is actually a product on the market now making a hefty load of cash. The EPA approves it. So can there be any serious risks or problems with this Frankenstein-like work? Have we put Mary Shelley's classic work to shame? Have we proven stronger than the natural Universe itself?

I won't make you wait for the answer - it's simply No - we haven't. And without proper oversight and insight from those leading the front of biotechnology the problems will continue and we will have a Frankenstein on our hands - and we will recoil in horror at what we had created. What problems, you ask? These problems:

Problems with Biotechnology and Transgenics

Profit is the number one problem for biotechnology and transgenics. It skews reason, it disregards long-term testing, and it corrupts government. Okay, how do I prove these things? We can start with Monsanto which is literally the Hamburglar of the world. As Grimace, Ronald, and the chicken nuggets are looking the other way Hamburglar sneaks behind the counter and steals more hamburgers than he could even possibly eat. Only instead of the counter Monsanto sneaks behind the world, and instead of stealing more hamburgers than he can eat, Monsanto steals more money than it can use. Bold claim! But not without cause. Monsanto was the producer of Agent Orange - of Agent Fucking Orage - and they have the audacity to make their logo a fucking plant? I mean isn't that seriously insane? Agent Orange killed everything it touched and mutated both animals and plants for generations to come - and yet we find Monsanto a member of a website called Bio.org with the theme "Science for Life."

You would think that anyone with that theme would have at least this single pre-requisite: The creators of Agent Orange are not allowed to join strictly on principle but they made it in. Now we can all say "Hey, that was Vietnam, Monsanto has a totally different staff, they've turned over a new leaf, they're an honest company now - they now are not motivated strictly by profit as they were back during Vietnam - at some point the company grew a conscience." Then it would be hard to explain the phenomenon known as Monsanto Revolving Doors. Excerpt from one of the multiple Monsanto documentaries:

The state of affairs in 1999 includes Linda Fisher moving from the Environmental Protection Agency to Monsanto, Michael Friedman from the FDA to Monsanto, Marcia Hale and Josh King from the White House to Monsanto, Margaret Miller from Monsanto to the FDA, William Ruckelshaus from the EPA to Monsanto, and let's not forget Michael Taylor who went back and forth several times.

Monsanto employees are flopping between the company and the government at the highest of levels and in areas that could change the biology of the Earth for centuries to come could at nicest be described as a conflict of interest, and at the strictest could be described as a crime against humanity. Because Monsanto has made a business out of biogenetics - roundup ready crops can only be bought for a single season - you are not allowed to replant the previous years seeds at a penalty that could cost everything you own. Much like the RIAA Monsanto has been trying to create a profit by becoming as litigious as possible filing loads of lawsuits because they knowingly have the upperhand in lawyers. Also it's a great way to eliminate your competition - which happens to be individual farm owners and not giant impenetrable behemoth corporations (which makes it super convenient for Monsanto).

Now I'm not just calling Monsanto a giant impenetrable behemoth without just cause. I'm not doing it to belittle it, but Monsanto has been the poster child for what is going wrong in the world of biotechnology today. A couple paragraphs up I linked a documentary on Monsanto. I'm going to do it again to be sure if you don't believe in the unethical practices Monsanto is engaging in that you know the facts you're up against. It's called The World According to Monsanto. This is not the only documentary on Monsanto and its unethical practices, but it's the only one available on the internet. It kills me when people get defensive of big business as if the very suggestion of unethical practices in the area of business deserves to be scoffed. But these are not men and women who dedicate their lives to peace, unity, the Universe, God, cohesion - they are dedicated to making a profit. What makes more logical sense? That Monsanto insists on creating a new seed every year because it's a great way to turn a profit or because they just want to update to the genetically best enhanced version for their customers and don't want previous batches soiling it? In the area of business profit is more than essential. And this should settle the argument alone because even Monsanto's public relations chief said:

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job.

I stress that point so much because I feel people would rather believe it's alarmist than make a stand against such methodological manipulation. All of these moves by Monsanto and its employees who went to and from the government have clear reasons to be motivated by profit and little else. The astoundingly lax standards on such an unknown technology with the obvious influence of Monsanto Employees within the agency that governs it - and because Monsanto is a corporation it makes no secrets that it's number one responsibility is to his shareholders. Now - before people get confused - I'm not saying there is anything wrong with capitalism - that is a totally separate issue. But the government is put in place to ensure safety for all before a rabid desire of profit. Because, after all what is capitalism but another complex game we play to make things seem less confusing. So at what point do we know when to say "Hey, that's unethical and a total detriment to nearly everybody but yourself"? The government is our agreed upon source for that. So when those who desire primarily to profit go into an agency of governing its own product to a pretty advantageous degree - that is wrong.

How advantageous? Remember earlier how I described the process of transgenics - like an infection? Creating genetically engineered plants with bad infections is obviously bad and illegal. But the fact remains - creating genetically engineered plants with good infections is not the same as making a regular plant (ie. planting just a regular seed). But high level biogenetics companies like Monsanto in the 80's were already working very closely with the government on a new and upcoming technology - genetically modified plants.  Biogenetic companies seemed to try and portray the dutiful American by promising the wonders we've previously imagined that biogenetics could provide. But there was just one tiny eency weency problem - the industry hadn't even begun yet - it was still completely in its infancy. There was no data to prove that Genetically Modified organisms were safe. "Well shucks!" says the GMO (biotech) companies, "If you want to be the best in the world we need to get started right away. It's just un-American to not let us lead in such a dream-delivering idea. Hey - I got an idea, judge us by our product, not by our process."

This is known as substantial equivalence. Basically if you breed a new strain of corn by taking two types of centuries old, untainted breeds you would not need to go to the FDA to get it approved. So the GMO companies say "That's basically exactly what we're doing - but instead of naturally breeding we'll just forcefully infect whatever parts of whatever species we please - but it'll look identical to corn so it's close enough. That's what substantial equivilance is - The law of close enough. It's like saying I've come up with a new way to slaughter cows for mass production - and as long as the meat isn't covered in e-coli or Mad Cow I have the right to sell it regardless of the process of how I butchered it. But if I butchered it in a way that was totally unsafe for the environment I'll never have to have a legal repercussion for that because we made a deal not to assess my process - only my product. And the government bought it hook line and sinker - but once again most likely with internal help. Finally after a lawsuit the FDA was forced to release documents proving it knew there was potential danger with the products that are not going to occur in naturally occurring plants. And that took a lawsuit - there was no apology and it's still in effect. Why wouldn't we want to know what the dangers to GM food is? Denise Caruso quotes from a critic (Linda Kahl) of the substantial equivalence product -

I believe there are at least two situations relative to this document in which it is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The first... is that the document is trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices.  This is because of the mandate to regulate the product, not the process. The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks. There is no data that addresses the relative magnitude of the risks - for all we know, the risks may be lower for genetically engineered foods than for foods produced by traditional breeding. But the acknowledgment that the risks are different is lost in the attempt to hold to the doctrine that the product and not the process is regulated.... [The second square peg is] the approach of at least part of the document is to use a scientific analysis... to develop policy statement. In the first place, are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data? It's no wonder that there are so many different opinions - it is an exercise in hypotheses forced on individuals whose jobs and training ordinarily deal with fact

Regardless the FDA approved the law of substantial equivalence. But for the biggest reason on why it's obvious that profit is the primary motivation we have to revisit bio.org. Simply looking at the slogan and the picture on the site one would assume the organization is around for the benefit of life. Yet the picture is truly symbolic - it is a picture of a plant growing out from dirt on top of a hand. Previously we only needed to put plants into just dirt to have them grow, but it is literally the goal of this site to remove that ability from you in exchange for growing your food out of their own hands. Even on the front page we can see profit is primarily the focus in this organization as all the entries seem to be directed at shareholders. Today there is a link to a blog entry called Science is your brand. The problem with language like that is that you're speaking as if you're talking to consumers - people who are looking for personal gain - not gain for humanity. And it's true - the blog addresses shareholders letting them know to "protect their investment." The only problem with that is that a shareholder only protects his investment as far as he believes he's going to make a profit off of it - not to the point that it's for the benefit of humanity or the world. In fact when we move to the members section of bio.org I start to notice something fishy - like something out of the Stepford Wives or Pleasantville. All the sites seem to be extremely similar. They all have serious scientists doing precision work or happy children and families or caring doctors... and of course the occasional cool close-up picture. In fact looking at the members of bio.org is like strolling down the suburbs of the internet - it is a place where image is more important than information. Lets take a look at some:

Monsanto - I just still am so stunned that Monsanto dares tries to remake its image to be a positive and natural thing when it is most definitely the very definition of unnatural in what they're doing.

Captial Royalty L.P. - hot looking girl doing something smart, check. double helix invading her skull? Check. What is the site actually for? Seems to be good for distributing money "appropriately" among GMOs, but they keep it vague enough that it just wants to you to give up at finding its actual duties.

Wyeth - Wyeth too has a randomized image maker of looking-out-for-you-doctors and satisfied customers. Thats because Wyeth is the creator of Robitussin and Advil. However it makes you wonder how far they will go, being a pharmaceutical giant, with a technology that has 0 risk assessment - it makes you wonder how many they already did.

PaleoTechnology - Ah yes - the sprawling beauty of nature covering the site following Monsanto's lead in replacing facts with nice pictures. Of course it's vague but it seems they have the crazy idea of finding solutions to our "problems associated with existing technologies" (ie. the oil crisis) by looking at oil. Who would have such backward logic but an oil company with too many assets to find a real alternative? Well their parent company - PetroHunter - seems to be quite close with Encana Oil & Gas as all of their producing wells are operated by Encana, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world.

Scigen - A Singapore company also directly related to bio.org. Again we see the surgeon-like hands doing careful scientific work and of course the happy little girl and boy jumping for joy. With those plus the cool blue background the site figures you need little more information now - so they politely explain that they do work dealing with endocrinology and immunology. Now these items are seriously important - I have a family member who is very close to me that could use the sciences of endocrinology so he doesn't need to take pills every day multiple times a day for his entire life (which hopefully will be very long), so it's not that I'm insensitive to the work... but how can you possibly work on genetically engineered immunities without assessing the risk? Also I find it interesting that this company is based in Singapore but all the key executives for the company aside from a secretary are white males (she seems to be doing her best to look like one though).

Yorktown Technologies, L.P. - Another fine innovative member of bio.org. They create the product known as Glofish (which come in 3 exciting colors! Electric Green, Starfire Red, or Sunburst Orange!) which are exactly what they sound like - fish that glow in the dark. What are they created for? For you! And your friends! They've genetically modified a species of fish for the sole purpose of making them glow in the dark. God knows what other parts of species ended up in these fish - but Glofish are an excellent example of where do we draw the line? and especially what about the risk of genetically modified pets? At what point do we agree that genetic infection stops here? Glofish are a promise by the biotech industry that there is no brake.

Spaltudaq - Though the company explains their website is under construction we can clearly see that they are nearly complete. They have their exciting picture of technology up there that gives us (the reader) only feelings - not facts. My only suggestion is that the site put up a scientist or a doctor doing something really important - and to balance out the seriousness put a happy family or some children. But again - they are part of bio.org and totally for pushing ahead on a technology that has no risk assessment and making it sound like they know what they're talking about - even though nobody does. But it is clear that they are working on these technologies for the ultimate goal of profit like all the other sites on bio.org

Sound Pharmaceuticals - Here is another company part of bio.org that is under construction - oh wait, no it's not. It's easy to get them confused because they all look so similar - under construction or not. This site is interesting because they plan on restoring hearing by regenerating your cells - obviously with the intent to profit which would be totally fine except for the process has unassessed risks (did we cover this thoroughly enough yet, because it seems a lot of people like to forget that part).