Facepalm by Alex E. Proimos via Flickr.

On Twitter yesterday, @seekblunttruth shared a link with @franknfoode that I thought deserved greater scrutiny. The link is to an ISIS post* titled Bt Crops Failures & Hazards.

Others may spend some time criticizing ISIS itself, and that criticism may be worthy, but here I’d like to focus on the post. I’ll let you check out the post content  yourself, but I want to focus on the works cited list.

There are 29 citations. We find 11 sources that are by ISIS authors. It’s ok to refer to your previous work, we do it on Biofortified all the time, but having almost 40% of the citations be self-citations feels like an attempt to pad the citations list. Many of the rest of the sources are either by biased organizations or have been previously debunked either in the literature or in the blogosphere.

The following 6 sources are not peer-reviewed. Really, only one of these (the Bloomberg article) is a useful source (assuming that you feel that non-peer reviewed media is useful).

1. EPA memorandum saying they plan to review insect resistance – This is not really useful, maybe ISIS meant to cite something else?
2. Article in Bloomberg – Reasonably balanced and useful article about development of insect resistance to Bt.
3. ISAAA brief on global status of biotech crops – Source used for number of hectares planted in biotech crops. Reasonably useful information source for this particular piece of info, but take with a grain of salt because this is a self-described pro-biotech organization.
4. Report by Navdanya International – I’ll let you decide the seriousness of the report from the cover (hint – there’s no biotech traits in wheat).
5. “Compendium of Cotton Mealybugs” by India’s Central Institute for Cotton Research – I don’t know enough about this organization to judge (and I don’t have time to read the whole report at the moment).
6. Pesticide Action Network report – By a self-described anti-pesticide and also anti-biotech organization.

The following 12 sources are peer-reviewed (41%). Of these, 5 have been thoroughly thrashed elsewhere, and citing them without critique is dishonest, in my humble opinion. One (#4) reminds us that biotech isn’t a silver bullet. The rest don’t really say “Bt good” or “Bt bad”, they’re details to be examined.

1. Inter-laboratory comparison of Cry1Ab toxin quantification in MON 810 maize by enzyme-immunoassay 2011 in Food and Agricultural Immunity. Cited to show variability in Bt concentrations.
2. Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt-cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm 2005 in Current Science. Same as above, although examines expression differences by genotype. Genotypic differences in gene expression are not unique to biotech traits, and are expected by breeders, so this isn’t unexpected.
3. Seasonal expression profiles of insecticidal protein and control efficacy against Helicoverpa armigera for Bt cotton in the Yangtze River valley of China 2005 in Journal of Economic Entomology. Again, differences in expression, this time in different plant parts. Again, not an unexpected result.
4. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China 2010 in Science. This paper showed that when you stop spraying pesticides, pests come back. Unfortunate, but not an unexpected result. This paper is a great example of how biotech pest resistance needs to be paired with integrated pest management. There are no silver bullets.
5. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements 2011 in Environmental Sciences Europe. This paper, by Séralini and Vendômois (and others) is based on a flawed paper that has been discussed elsewhere, including by the European Food Safety Authority.
6. Cry1Ac pro-toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine 2010 in Biochemical Biophysical Research Communications. I have not seen previous analysis of this paper. Perhaps a Biofortified reader would like to discuss it further. One question I have is whether other proteins from plants and bacteria have similar reactions with proteins on the intestine. Another question is whether the proteins binding has any actual physiological effect.
7. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada 2011 in Reproductive Toxicolology. This paper has been discussed elsewhere, including by Marcel Kuntz and Food Standards Australia New Zealand, then subsequently on Biofortified.
8. Reduced fitness of Daphnia magna fed a Bt-transgenic maize variety 2008 in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. I have not seen previous analysis of this paper. Any Biofortified readers familiar with it?
9. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae 1999 in Nature. This famous paper by Losey (and others) has been extensively discussed elsewhere, including by Iowa State entomologist Hellmich.
10. Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk? 2011 in Insect Conservation and Diversity. The hypothesis of this paper is pretty silly. It proposes that an increase in glyphosate resistant crops resulted in more milkweed being sprayed with glyphosate so less food for monarchs. Never mind increased deforestation and conversion of natural lands to cropland (resulting in less milkweed) in the same time frame. Never mind the fact that if glyphosate wasn’t being used, some other herbicide (that also kills milkweed) would be used. This is not an argument against glyphosate resistance, or against Bt, or against biotech traits. It may be an argument for careful land use, set-asides of land for natural habitat, and integrated pest management – all of which can just as easily be done with biotechnology as without.
11. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico 2001 in Nature. As Mercer and Wainright point out, Quist’s results haven’t been replicated. I have written a post about gene flow that may be relevant to understanding the Quist paper.
12. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems 2007 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This paper by Rosi-Marshall (and others) has been critiqued elsewhere (see the responses at the bottom of the article). I wrote about this paper back in 2008 (and in 2007).

The author of the ISIS post failed to do a proper literature search, so didn’t find any of the sources that showed anything but their preconceived notions of Bt. This is definitely worthy of a facepalm, if not a headdesk. If anyone has relevant points to add to this analysis, post a comment and I’ll update the post.

* They call it a report but if that is a report than most if not all of the posts on Biofortified are also reports.

Word cloud for the thesis (excluding citations and figure legends). I like how it looks like an ear of corn.

Abstract

Maize is a high yielding crop that provides a relatively high calorie source of food and feed, but focus on yield has not improved nutritional qualities. Some nutrients that are lacking in maize are iron and essential amino acids. In this dissertation some ways that genes from maize might be used to improve nutritional quality of maize are discussed, including improvement of bioavailable iron with maize globin and exploration of maize seed storage proteins. In addition, strategies to improve maize are explored, including breeding with mutations and transgenes and investigation of the effects of selection on transgenes.

Maize globin was found to be as bioavailable as ferrous sulfate, both when used as a forticant added to maize flour and when expressed in maize with an endosperm specific promoter. These results indicate that maize globin could be used to biofortify maize with highly bioavailable iron. Assessment of seed storage proteins in maize inbreds, landraces, and teosintes found unique proteins in teosintes that may be moved into maize through biotechnology or breeding to improve amino acid balance. Investigation of the effects of ensiling on seed storage proteins in maize used as ruminant feed found that longer ensiling times degraded some seed storage proteins, which may make the starch more digestible, but inoculation with Lactobacillus did not have an effect.

A variety of breeding methods can be used to improve qualities of maize. Maize transformed with a construct encoding green fluorescent protein controlled by a maize seed storage protein promoter was subjected to recurrent selection in order to increase transgene expression. This resulted in increased expression of the native gene with the same promoter, while unrelated traits were not changed. Backcrossing can be used to bring a mutation or transgene into a specific genetic background, while forward breeding can be used to improve characteristics of a line that carries a gene of interest.

Rationale

In many parts of the world, people are unable to obtain necessary nutrients from dietary sources. There are many factors that affect hunger and malnutrition, including political and social factors. Ideally, these factors will be changed to allow more people to lead healthy lives. Unfortunately, changing political and social systems can take decades, and in the meantime, many go hungry or malnourished. Maize is an important staple crop in parts of Africa, South America, and Central America. In addition, maize is an important feed crop in the developed and developing world. In this dissertation some ways that qualities of maize might be altered to help improve human quality of life are discussed, including improvement of bioavailable iron, amino acid balance, and investigation of effects of selection on transgenes.

Dissertation organization

This dissertation is divided into seven chapters. In the introductory chapter, an overall literature review is provided. The second chapter includes research conducted on maize hemoglobin. The goal of this research was to determine the potential of maize hemoglobin as an iron bioforticant. The third chapter includes research on transgene and native gene expression in response to selection for transgene expression. The goal of this research was to investigate the effects of selection on a transgene and to determine the relationship between expression of a transgene and a native gene with the same promoter. The fourth and fifth chapters are studies of seed storage proteins. The sixth chapter is about breeding with transgenes. In the seventh chapter, overall conclusions are discussed.

Note: Chapters four through six were previously published and were reprinted in my thesis with permission from the publishers. I doubt that permission extends to blog posts, so if you wish to see them and do not otherwise have access, please contact me directly. The citations for those chapters are as follows:

Flint-Garcia SA, Bodnar AL, Scott MP. Wide variability in kernel composition, seed characteristics, and zein profiles among diverse maize inbreds, landraces, and teosinte. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2009 Oct;119(6):1129-42. PMID: 19701625.

Hoffman PC, Esser NM, Shaver RD, Coblentz WK, Scott MP, Bodnar AL, Schmidt RJ, Charley RC. Influence of ensiling time and inoculation on alteration of the starch-protein matrix in high moisture corn. Journal of Dairy Science. 2010; 94(5):2465-2474.

Bodnar AL, Scott MP. Using mutations in corn breeding programs. The Handbook of Plant Mutation Screening. Ed. Meksem K, Kahl G. Wiley, 2010.

My summer job was to serve as a mentor for 10 wonderful, talented undergrads from all over the US. They were at Iowa State for a program called “Research Experience for Undergraduates” that I would recommend to any young people interested in science. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the students got free housing and food, plus a generous stipend. They got to work side by side with researchers at ISU all summer. For many of them, the research will result in a publication – a significant achievement for an undergraduate. The goal of the program is to allow students an opportunity to try “real” science, hopefully encouraging them to go to grad school, or, in some cases, helping them realize that research is not for them. Students who might not otherwise get a chance to do research are selected, such as those from small liberal arts universities and minority students.

My specific job responsibilities included taking care of administrative details such as in-processing to the university and helping to run weekly luncheons with scientists. The best part of the job was getting to organize field trips and go with the students. We went to Living History Farms, where students learned about farming methods from pre-colonization all the way to modern methods. We smelled and tasted local produce and other foods at the Des Moines Farmer’s Market. We spent a day at a conventional hog farm, seeing pigs from birth to adulthood. We learned about the medical side of research through a visit to the Mayo Clinic and about commercial agricultural research through a visit to Pioneer. Each trip was an adventure that was even more fun for me because I got to experience it through their eyes. REU is a wonderful program and I’m honored to have played a small part in it.

When I wasn’t running around to field trips or taking students to the social security office to get new cards, I was writing. And writing. And writing some more. Nights blended into days as I let my drive to write dictate when I slept and when I woke. I spent a lot of time at Vesuvius Wood Fired Pizza, where the authentic Italian pizza is so delicious and the atmosphere was quiet but not too quiet. The staff was very tolerant as I arrived at 11am when they opened then finally looked up bleary eyed as the diner crowd started to pour in, having spent the day on data analysis or re-writing a chapter for the millionth time.

The result of my labor is titled “Novel approaches to improving qualities of maize endosperm”. I will post parts of my thesis little by little in case anyone would like to read them, I’ll figure out a way to post it without having one huge long post.

At the end of July, my mom visited me in Iowa to help me pack the house, just as I was finishing my PowerPoint for my defense. She was there for a week but it seemed like much less as all of a sudden it was Friday the 22nd, the day of the defense! My mom stayed with the movers (yes, the movers came on the defense day, it was the only day they could come!) while I set up the snacks and projector for the defense. My best friend who now lives in another state even drove up to see the talk! My friends and colleagues from all over the university got to hear me give a mostly smooth talk, interrupted only a few times by me saying “ok, let me restate that, I’m getting ahead of myself” or something similar. It was really a comfort to have so many friends there to support me. After the seminar, everyone cleared out and it was time for the real questions.

My committee was great. They had really good questions, most of which I did well enough on, although I had to stop and take a breath when diagramming allele frequencies in my corn populations on the white board. I was nervous, although far less than I expected to be. No huge flaws were discovered, and I was announced as Dr. Bodnar. I’m still surprised that none of them called me on my long convoluted introduction that discussed everything from food insecurity to evolutionary plant breeding, but I suppose they were more concerned with my actual research.

It seemed fitting to go to Vesuvius for dinner, and then to my lab manager’s house for a going away party. My major professor’s daughter made lovely cupcakes that said “Congratulations Dr Bodnar” letter by letter! It was great to catch up with everyone, especially since I hadn’t spent much time in the lab over the summer. I didn’t even get to help in the fields this year, and didn’t get any sweet corn from our research plots. I still can’t believe that part of my life is over. Iowa State holds so many memories and so many wonderful people. I miss them very much.

There wasn’t much time for reminiscing, though. On Saturday, we had the trip to the hog farm, then Sunday it was time to head out! Pete and Peppy (the cats) were in their carriers, and Devin and Leila (the dogs) had their leashes hooked near the back door of my Matrix so they couldn’t climb into the front seat. Snacks and clothes filled the rest of the back, and my mom and I barely had room up front. We stopped in a great Marriott in Ohio that allowed all 6 of us to stay for a reasonable fee, and arrived at the townhouse on Monday at about 5pm. This is the townhouse that I rented sight unseen because it is impossible to find a place that will take four pets! It’s… ok. Let’s just say I was ready to move out before I even moved in. I didn’t have time to even think about finding another place, though, because I started work on August 1st!

Between writing, I was looking for positions with the USDA but they weren’t really hiring, with the budget cutbacks and all. I even applied for some regulatory affairs positions with big ag, but I’m overqualified (PhD rather than Masters) so didn’t even get any interviews. I went to a job fair at ISU, and while some of the jobs seemed sort of interesting, I really didn’t want to be another plant geneticist at Monsanto. I also really didn’t want to be an academic researcher scrambling for grants for years and years until maybe getting tenure. After teaching biology lab last fall, I knew teaching wasn’t for me either.

I’ve known for a long time that I wanted to go into some sort of science policy or science communication career. I’ve always felt the pull back to government service. Thankfully, my spouse is great at finding about neat opportunities and he told me about the Presidential Management Fellowship. Since the 1970s, this program has placed young people with graduate degrees into government bureaucracy. It’s a much needed injection of youthful creativity combined with advanced education that allows the US government to avoid getting stuck in the past (well, there are only so many of us, but we try!).

The application process is pretty rigorous. First, I had to convince Iowa State’s grad college to start an advertising campaign so they could accept nominations – because your school must nominate you for the program. Then, an online personality test determines if we are fit for government service. Finally, an all-day in-person interview that we had to pay our own expenses to get to. There was an individual and a team briefing exercise and a writing exercise. The applicant pool started at about 9000 and 850 were selected to be finalists. After being selected, we have to find out own jobs. I went to the PMF job fair in Washington, DC (paying my own expenses, again) but just wasn’t really that excited about any of the offerings. There were a few positions I could see myself enjoying, but they weren’t really career starters. Then, I went to happy hour. No, really.

GovLoop, a social networking service for government employees had a happy hour for new PMFs. I was tempted to stay in the hotel to grade finals, but decided networking was more important. At the bar, I bumped into an NIH employee that was previously a PMF but was now Special Assistant to the Director of HR at NIH. When I said I was a geneticist, he asked if I’d applied to NIH. My response: “NIH has jobs for PMFs?” NIH’s intern program was in a state of flux with a new program director coming on board, so they hadn’t advertised. I went back to the hotel and immediately applied. I was interviewed over the phone, and after waiting nervously for weeks, got a call at 7pm the day before my graduation ceremony that I had a job!

So, I’m a Presidential Management Fellow at the National Institutes of Health. What does that mean? This program has to be the single best opportunity in all of the federal government, and possibly anywhere else. For all of you grad students out there reading this, here’s the scoop:

It’s a two year fellowship, starting as a GS-9 with non-competitive promotion to 11 after the first year, and to 12 after the second year, assuming you stay with NIH (if you’re not familiar with these numbers, Google GS pay scale – it’s not extravagant, but it’s pretty nice after 6 years of research assistant pay).

During the two years, you are expected to do rotations lasting between 3 and 6 months with different offices. The location and subject matter of the rotations, among all 27 of the institutes, is up to the intern. I’m focusing on communications and legislative affairs, but will also try my hand at budget and grants management (we have to do 2 “core” rotations in budget, grants, administrative officer, or human resources). We get to meet with the executive officers of every institute (they are like the CEOs) and pretty much have a golden ticket to have an hour meeting with any higher level staff person we want (except maybe Dr. Collins, although I haven’t asked!). It’s networking heaven. We are also encouraged to get involved in NIH wide activities and committees. Oh, and I almost forgot, $2500 per year for personal development! I’m using my funds to get a certificate in Legislative Studies at Georgetown. Oh, and one more thing – we can do an external rotation anywhere in the US government. I’m trying to get a rotation on the Hill approved.

The NIH philosophy on this seems to be that the PMF program (and a few other intern programs) is the best way to grow their own managers. They’ve been involved with the program since the mid-80′s and the ranks of NIH are peppered liberally with former PMFs.

For anyone interested in NIH, they also have a ton of great programs for students from undergrad to post-doc levels. If you’d like more info on those let me know and I’ll try to help you find it. Same with the PMF program – they will start accepting nominations in mid September, so if you have any questions about applying please contact me ASAP.

So, that’s where I am, and how I got here. Now I just need to figure out what a former soldier with a doctorate in corn genetics and a blog about biotechnology is doing at the National Institutes of Health

Thanks for reading my story!

GMO Shortens Life Span by Michael. This shirt design was submitted to Atrium in the No GMO t-shirt design challenge.

Threadless recently hosted* a t-shirt contest for Jeffery Smith‘s Institute for Responsible Technology: the No GMO t-shirt design challenge (see Karl’s post Vote for talking, not fighting for more details). One of the shirts really struck me: GMO Shortens Life Span by Michael. The artist proposes an equation:

plants + DNA  = death

This slogan really makes me wonder – does the artist know that plants have DNA? Does he know that his own cells are teeming with DNA? That without DNA, life wouldn’t exist? Do most people know that DNA is essential for life? What would the average person say if told that they eat about 100 thousand miles of DNA in the average meal?

If this is the level of understanding, or rather, misunderstanding, that persons have, can we ever expect to have useful discourse on the subject of biotechnology or even biology itself? This worries me greatly. Just in case anyone out there reading this is concerned that DNA is dangerous, I’d like to provide a simple recipe that anyone can use to see and touch DNA for themselves.

As shown in the picture below, DNA is tightly packed in each cell. It’s wrapped around proteins called histones, then coiled into the familiar X chromosome shape. The amount of DNA per cell depends on the species, but each cell has about 9 feet of DNA in it. Since each meal contains tens of millions of cells, you eat about 7 to 10 miles of DNA at each meal!

Cells to DNA. Image from Michigan State University.

There are a lot of DNA extraction recipes out there, but there are a few essential steps. The DNA must be freed from the cell membrane and the membrane of the nucleus. Then, the DNA needs to be separated from the membrane bits, proteins, and other cellular parts. Finally, the DNA needs to be precipitated, or brought out of solution by becoming a solid instead of being dissolved in the solution.

Supplies:

• Source of DNA. Fruit, especially banana or strawberries, works great because they have a lot of DNA per cell. Onions have a lot of DNA per cell too, but make for a much less pleasant smelling DNA extraction than berries or bananas.
• Detergent, such as shampoo or dish soap. Clear detergent is better so dye doesn’t cover up the action.
• Coffee filter to remove proteins, cell membrane parts, and other cellular gunk from your DNA solution.
• Table salt to precipitate proteins and carbohydrates.
• Ethanol to precipitate the DNA. Rubbing alcohol is ethanol, preferably 95%.
• A plastic sandwich baggie.
• 3 cups.
• A plastic teaspoon.
• A test tube or narrow glass like a shot glass.
• Toothpick.

Safety note: if you are tempted to taste the DNA, just remember that there is shampoo and rubbing alcohol in there and that these things are generally not good to eat! DNA itself, though, is perfectly safe – we eat it in every meal.  Really want to eat DNA? Check out these instructions for building an edible model.

*Just in case you were wondering, the contests aren’t vetted by Threadless, they are run by a separate site, Atrium. This was important for me, because I rather like Threadless, but I prefer to avoid patronizing companies whose publicized ethical stance I disagree with.

Field of Dreams in Dyersville, IA by John Bollwitt.

We often talk about the science of corn (aka maize) but there’s so much more to it. I’ll be leaving corn country soon to start a new job, and I know I’ll miss being in the center of so much maize.

Consider the natural beauty of a cornfield swaying in a summer breeze, with killdeer and red-winged blackbirds calling amongst the buzzing of grasshoppers.

It’s just a cornfield, but the combination of symmetry and asymmetry from afar and up close, of being in the presence of a plant that has been touched by humans for thousands of years, somehow makes it a very interesting place to be – even when I have many hours of pollinating or harvesting behind and ahead of me.

Each time I’ve visited the post office here in Ames, I’ve noticed a beautiful mural. This time, I asked about it and was directed to the Ames Historical Society website (the mural inspired this post). ”Evolution of Corn” was painted in 1938 by Lowell Houser. It is oil on canvas, an impressive 18’2” x 5’9”. The details are stunning, a tribute to corn farmers and breeders from both ancient and modern times. If you’re ever in Ames, I highly recommend seeing it in person.

In addition to all of the art you can find around the corner in Ames, Iowa State University has the largest art collection of any university in the United States. You can view it though the eyes of a student at the Art on Campus blog. It’s not all about corn, but agriculture is a strong theme. The art of Iowa State has inspired quite a bit of poetry, much of it with strong agriculture and science themes.

I’ve lived in many places, but Ames, Iowa has stolen my heart. Ames is such a lovely place, in part because of all the corn, and all of the art, but also because of the people. It’s so nice, we need our own song:

Ames, Ames, gee whiz,
Now we will sing and tell what it is,
A swell little city of which we are proud,
Her praises we’ll sing, in melody loud,
A beautiful city as ev’ry one knows,
In the heart of the state where the tall corn grows.

eXtension collects fact-based information from subject matter experts in extension offices at from 74 land-grant institutions in the US so it can be easily accessed by anyone 24/7/365. This non-profit is overseen by representatives of land grant institutions chosen by each of 7 regions in the US (details on mission and oversight can be found at the eXtension Foundation website).  

If you go to the website, it should auto-detect your location so you can find information from your closest extension office. You can also choose to select a different institution by zip code or state or just browse the list of institutions. Another option is to view subjects by resource areas aka Communities of Practice.

eXtension has a special search function that allows you to search almost 1000 cooperative extension sites. If you don’t find what you need there, you can Ask an Expert. You can even attach an image if your question is about something you’ve seen, like a plant disease or insect you can’t identify.

I just have to get on my soapbox for a moment. Unfortunately, despite its importance, funding for extension does not seem to be a priority. For example, last time I checked, the Iowa legislature was looking at a $20 million cut for extension, on top of state cuts for universities, on top of federal cuts for universities and extension. Similar or worse cuts are happening across the country.

If you find non-biased, independent information on agriculture to be a valuable service, please let your elected officials know. You could even use a nifty Web 2.0 service like Votizen!

1) When talking about climate change, if we ever want to accomplish real communication, we need to find the scientists that are in the pragmatic* middle. These scientists in the pragmatic middle are more likely to be able to make themselves understood and are more likely to have things in common with the public in the pragmatic middle.

Does this apply to biotechnology? In some ways, I have to say no. Karl** and I are in the pragmatic middle in that, while we generally find the process of biotechnology to be safe and potentially useful, we agree that not all applications of biotechnology are beneficial and that many changes in regulation need to be made in order for biotechnology to fit into a diverse agricultural system. Neither of us are dogmatic about biotech, which you would think, as Matt says, would allow us to better communicate with the pragmatic middle. The problem that both of us face is: where is the public in the pragmatic middle, or how can we reach the public in the pragmatic middle?

The people who are talking about biotechnology in social media are decidedly not in the middle. Biotech is such a minor issue compared to things like the economy, unemployment, and even climate change, that those who are actively talking about biotechnology are firmly entrenched on either side of the badly drawn lines. People like Karl and I in the middle are drown out by the less pragmatic loud voices. I’m not sure what to do about that.

There is the added problem of people not believing the science. In both climate change and biotechnology, it seems that some individuals are insistent in their belief that scientists are somehow compromised, or bribed. In the case of climate change, there are accusations that even public scientists are motivated by greed, although this doesn’t make much sense as there are many other careers that are far far more lucrative than science that a person concerned with money might go into. In the case of biotechnology, there are accusations that all scientists are working for big industry, including public scientists, even when there is no evidence of a connection. Scientists need to learn how to translate their science into forms that the public can understand, but what is the point if people don’t believe scientists are a reliable source?

2) Studies, such as a survey of AAAS scientists, have shown that when it comes to climate change, politics has at least some effect on one’s stance on the science. While a high percentage of AAAS scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, a high percentage of those scientists are politically liberal. When you look at the small subset of AAS scientists that are politically conservative, that subset is much less likely to accept climate change. This indicates that acceptance of climate change science is not as greatly influenced by knowledge of the subject matter or ability to understand complex scientific topics.

Biotechnology does not seem to follow this pattern. Looking at scientists who accept the science of biotechnology, one finds politically liberal and conservative individuals. With climate change, an educational approach that aims to change minds through exposure to the science has not proven successful, possibly because of the strong political associations. With biotechnology, I hope that an educational approach could be more successful. As people understand more about the science of plant breeding and biotechnology, I hope that acceptance of the science, if not of the applications, of biotechnology could occur.

Real changes in policies, regulation, agriculture in general, won’t be possible unless at least some of the public is willing to look at the science and at least some of the scientists and regulators are able to realistically understand the concerns of the public. How can we communicate when perceived bias and political leanings get in the way of one or both sides? How can the pragmatic middles find each other and work towards better policy?

.

*pragmatic |pragˈmatik| adjective  - dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations : a pragmatic approach to politics.

** I have taken the liberty of bringing Karl, my co-executive editor in this blogging project, into my discussion here because in our discussions I feel that we have similar opinions on the subject of biotechnology and many other things. If this assumption is in error, it is entirely my fault and not his.

While claims about “micro-fungi” are too extraordinary to even consider until extraordinary proof is provided (and preferably replicated by another lab and peer reviewed), Don Huber’s claims that Roundup (specifically the active ingredient glyphosate) weakens crops by binding minerals in the soil seems to have at least some merit, at least enough to be taken seriously and examined further.

Over the years since Roundup Ready (RR) crops have been released, independent researchers have conducted many studies to determine whether there is a specific problem with some crop varieties with the RR gene, with all crops with the RR gene, or with glyphosate itself. Overall, the research shows that there may be some concern about glyphosate reducing availability of some minerals when the soil is deficient in those minerals. The research hasn’t found a problem with the RR gene itself.

It is important to note that the stack of peer reviewed papers indicating glyphosate to be a problem with disease or yield is much smaller than the stack indicating there is no problem. We must look at the entire body of evidence, not just cherry pick one or a few papers, in order to get a clear understanding of what’s really happening. Happily, extension experts from multiple universities have summarized the research for us, but if you want to look for yourself, PubMed is a great place to start.

Claims of interactions between glyphosate and minerals

In February of 2010, Dr. Huber appeared in an article by Martha Ostendorf titled Are We Shooting Ourselves In The Foot With A Silver Bullet? in No-Till Magazine along with Bob Streit, an agronomy consultant in Iowa. That article is no longer available from the No-Till Farmer website, but thankfully a Biofortified reader found another source (linked from the article title). Another article written by Huber at about the same time is Ag chemical and crop nutrient interactions. In these document, a lot of claims are made that aren’t consistent with the majority of peer reviewed research on the subject.

Since 2010, Dr. Huber has continued publicly claiming that glyphosate binds up minerals in the soil, making the minerals unavailable to crops and increasing susceptibility to disease (specifically fungal disease), thus decreasing yields. He spoke to the Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario in March 2010, one of many talks he’s given on this topic. In February 2011, he gave a talk in Des Moines at a seminar organized by the same Bob Streit and Amie Brandy. Dr. Huber has published some peer reviewed studies to back up his claims as well.

Dr. Huber is not the only scientist that has found interactions between glyphosate and minerals. Back in 2007, Barney Gordon published some research in an industry newsletter indicating that glyphosate treated soybeans may require manganese fertilizer for optimal yields: Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans. Of course, this research was used inappropriately as “evidence” that genetic engineering reduces yields, but that’s another story.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Huber’s work has been used eagerly by fertilizer companies and organizations that promote fertilizers to encourage farmers to apply minerals to their crops. For example, see Glyphosate and Micronutrients by Jim Halbeisen of Growers Mineral Solutions and Missing Micro Nutrients by Larry Reichenberger of ProfitPro (who sells liquid fertilizer).

Dr. Huber has published directly in fertilizer promotion materials, such as the Fluid Journal (sponsored by the Fluid Fertilizer Foundation): What About Glyphosate-Induced Manganese Deficiency? Dr. Gordon’s Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans was published in Better Crops which is run by the International Plant Nutrition Institute which encourages use of a variety of fertilizers.

Response from extension

Understandably, farmers have been actively pursuing more information from extension agents as soon as they hear about a possible decrease in yields with glyphosate use. University extension has responded with multiple documents and presentations to help guide farmers using known research and by conducting additional research. Extension agents have a unique ability to bring research directly to farmers and other people near the university and can quickly conduct field tests to help farmers make science-based decisions.

In February of 2010, Iowa State University Extension produced a great overview of the research that includes analysis of some papers of which Dr. Huber was a co-author: Glyphosate-Manganese Interactions in Roundup Ready Soybean by Bob Hartzler, Extension Weed Specialist and Professor of Agronomy. He concludes that manganese uptake varies depending on which soybean variety is being used, not on whether or not the RR gene is present. He also concludes that while it is known that glyphosate will bind to soluble manganese, this is only a problem in manganese deficient soils.

In November of 2010, Bob Hartzler released Glyphosate Interactions with Micronutrients and Plant Disease, with the conclusion:

Due to the complexity of the processes that occur within the root zone, it is impossible to completely rule out negative effects of glyphosate on mineral nutrition or disease development in GR crops.  However, results from field research and our widespread experience with glyphosate on GR crops for over a decade do not indicate widespread negative impacts of glyphosate on these factors.

In April of 2010, University of Minnesota Extension put out a short commentary that also discussed Dr. Huber’s claims: Roundup and Manganese for Minnesota Soybeans. Extension agent George Rehm conducted experiments in Minnesota and found that additional manganese was not needed due to adequate manganese in Minnesota soils. The April commentary was actually a followup to a xpost about manganese from January of 2010, Magnesium In Minnesota, that attracted some critical commentary from none other than Bob Streit.

In January of 2011, Ohio State University Extension released a presentation (Flash needed) by Robert Mullen, extension specialist and associate professor, summarizing their work on this subject: Manganese / Glyphosate antagonism? Their research shows that applying manganese to soy does increase the concentration of manganese in plant tissues, but did not find that glyphosate caused decreases in yield or manganese. Adding manganese can cause yield increase or yield decrease depending on environment, specially soil type. They did find that soil type and pH causes significant differences in manganese uptake.

In February of 2011, Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Perdue University Extension put out a paper titled Glyphosate’s Impact on Field Crop Production and Disease Development that seems to be in direct response to the flurry of blog posts and “news” articles about Roundup that were spurred by Dr. Huber’s recent letter. While they don’t mention Dr. Huber directly, they do cite and express concern about articles that are credulous about Dr. Huber’s claims regarding glyphosate and plant and animal disease. They conclude:

Overall, the claims that glyphosate is haing a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated. To date, there is limited scientific research data that suggest that plant diseases have increased in GM crops due to the use of glyphosate. Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control. We encourage crop producers, agribusiness personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts.

This isn’t the first time that Dr. Huber’s colleages have attempted to do damage control in response to “greatly exaggerated” reports by Dr. Huber about minerals and glyphosate. In April of 2010 Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Perdue University Extension released Glyphosate – Manganese Interactions and Impacts on Crop Production: The Controversy, referring interested persons to Iowa State University Extension. They state that high pH, high organic matter soils cause manganese to be less available to the crop whether or not glyphosate is present.

Update: Extension agents are still working to correct what they see as misinformation spread by Dr. Huber. Anne Dorrance, expert in soybean pathology and extension agent at Ohio State has a 14 March 2011 article in Ag Professional: Glyphosate Effects on Soybean Diseases. She directly assesses the claims that glyphosate use has increased incidence of disease, backed up with literature and her personal experience.

Have you seen any other extension or other articles by professional agronomists on this topic? Let us know and I’ll include them here.

Consider the data, not the source

I have read some claims that university researchers can not be trusted because many universities accept some grants from agricultural companies. Specifically, some bloggers have claimed that the Purdue extension agents’ scientific integrity is compromised, which is something that I think needs to be addressed, especially when it is clear that fertilizer companies and foundations are so eager to use Dr. Huber’s research. Potential conflicts of interest go every which way.

Purdue, like Iowa State and every other university, has strict standards of scientific and professional ethics. In addition, the amount of research funding granted by companies is small compared to funding from other sources. For example, at Iowa State, publicly available detailed reports of funding show that the research being conducted with corporate funding are far from the majority of funding and that most grants are extremely specific in scope. While there are isolated examples of inappropriate conduct of public universities regarding private companies or company interests, that is no reason to denounce every employee at every public university.

Instead of smearing the names of extension employees and researchers, we should examine the veracity of their work. We need to consider the data available. The identity of the source needs to be known in order to determine if a person has relevant expertise. We can look at the source to get a feeling for how much skepticism we need to apply. Go too far beyond that, and we get dangerously close to ad homs.

The story has been picked up by many bloggers, including Jill Richardson, and even made an appearance on Reuters. I haven’t seen any posts dedicated to a critical analysis of the letter, instead there is a rush to assume that it is correct, despite the lack of citations or other evidence provided for the extraordinary claims in the letter. The story is often accompanied with horrific pictures of dead fetal calves and the words “Emergency!” and “Danger!” Are we really all in danger? The claims in the letter bring to mind Carl Sagan’s famous statement: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Let’s investigate the claims and determine whether enough evidence is provided.

“This organism appears NEW to science!”

In the letter, Dr. Huber claims that there is a never-before-seen pathogen that is caused by or exacerbated by either glyphosate containing Roundup herbicide or the widely used glyphosate resistance gene. The letter opens:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

Right here in the first paragraph is Extraordinary Claim #1. Dr. Huber is claiming that a single pathogen can “significantly impact” the health of corn, soy, and animals. Not impossible, but extraordinary evidence is required to back up the claim because known pathogens are generally very host specific, whether they are bacteria, virus, fungus, or parasite. A corn pathogen will not infect soy. A human pathogen will not infect cows. In cases where a single pathogen will affect multiple species, it affects groups of very similar species, not corn and cows.

What evidence does Dr. Huber provide for this extraordinary claim? None, actually. Just more extraordinary claims that seem to get more and more extraordinary with each paragraph.

Extraordinary Claim #2 is that the “organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified.” He leaves us with far more questions than answers. What characteristics, exactly, cause him to compare this claimed pathogen to a fungus? How could it be possible to have a fungus so small? Where are the pictures? How big is the claimed organism and what does it look like? What is the evidence that it is reproducing? What other tests have been done to confirm its existence?

Fungi and viruses – not at all similar

Fungi have some special characteristics that make them easily identifiable. First, fungi are eukaryotes, meaning that they have complex cells with structures enclosed in membranes called organelles, along with plants and animals, but unlike bacteria which lack organelles. Eukaryotic cells range between roughly 10 and 100 micrometers (μm) long. Second, fungi have some characteristics that make them unique compared to other eukaryotes. Like plants, they have cell walls but unlike plants, those cell walls contain chitin instead of cellulose. At minimum, if we want to call something a fungus, it needs to have organelles like other eukaryotes and needs to have those unique cell walls.

Eukaryotic cells are many times larger than viruses. "Scanning electron micrograph of the surface of a mouse cell infected with murine leukemia virus. A large number of virus particles are shown in the process of budding." By R. MacLeod via The Free Dictionary.

Viruses are completely unlike eukaryotes or bacteria. They have a wide range of shapes but all look quite different from eukaryotic or bacterial cells. Viruses are little more than some nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat, allowing them to be much smaller than cells, at a range of roughly 0.01 to 0.1 micrometers (μm). Even the largest virus is much smaller than the smallest eukaryotic cell. In fact, viruses are smaller than the any of the organelles inside a eukaryotic cell.

Saying that something is a “micro-fungal-like organism” as small as a virus just doesn’t make any sense. Of course, there’s been other strange things discovered, things that defied existing biological knowledge. Maybe this thing is from space, transported on meteorites. Who knows!? If it is true, then Dr. Huber and colleagues would undoubtedly be lauded for their amazing discovery. But this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and Dr. Huber provides none.

Electron microscopy – it’s not easy

Series of images of a snowflake taken by USDA researchers. Click the pic for larger images.

When I worked for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Beltsville, MD as an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to use an electron microscope to look for viruses in plant tissue samples. Our goal was to identify plant pathogens before plant material got shipped all over the country. The normal procedure was to wait a pre-determined period of time to see if a plant would show symptoms, but if we could ID viruses before symptoms showed we could save a lot of time. Unfortunately, the technique didn’t pan out, at least while I was working there, because the experts weren’t able to find a technique that allowed them to accurately ID viruses with electron microscopy.

Electron microscopy is very touchy, with many things that could go wrong. Strange artifacts or errors in the images can be introduced by the processing a sample must undergo before viewing, by less than perfect use of the instrument, and by the instrument itself. Consider this series of images of a single snowflake taken at increasing magnification with an electron microscope. As the magnification goes up, the likelihood that meaning could be ascribed to a random bump also goes up.

Paul Vincelli, Professor of Plant Pathology at
University of Kentucky and member of the American Phytopathological Society (APS), has expertise in plant pathogens including viruses and fungi. He has commented on the post Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup by Rady Arnada indicating that he has seen the claimed “micro fungus” research himself. He said he has spoken with another researcher that has seen the electron micrographs, who concluded that the supposed “micro fungus” is actually just artifacts and that “detailed molecular data were needed before concluding that the structures observed were actually organismal.” Hopefully Dr. Huber plans to relase the images soon so additional experts can examine them. You have to wonder why the images haven’t already been released.

Pathogen presence

Extraordinary Claim #3 is that the claimed pathogen “is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.” Why is this extraordinary? There is no control information provided.

We need to know what are the relative concentrations of the claimed pathogen in corn and soy plants grown in identical conditions, preferably in multiple environments of the following categories so we can isolate the effects of the Roundup Ready gene and of Roundup:

1. Roundup Ready plants that are treated with Roundup
2. Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method
3. non-Roundup Ready plants that are genetically similar to the Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method (negative control)

Without these comparisons, saying “high concentrations” is meaningless. We also need to know the relative concentration of the claimed pathogen in animals fed these different plant samples under strictly controlled conditions. We also need to know how the presence of the claimed pathogen was determined and whether it was confirmed with any additional tests, such as nucleic acid or protein analysis.

Similarly, the claim that the “organism is prolific in plants infected with … sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn” also requires comparison to uninfected plants with and without Roundup and the RR gene. Dr. Huber continues: “The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).” Found in? As in inside the cells? How do you know? Again, where are the pictures?

Cattle, swine, and horses (oh, my)

French dairy cows. Are these ladies luckier with their calves than American cows? Image by Meg Hourihan via Flickr.

Extraordinary Claim #4 is that there has been “escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.” For comparison, the expected rate of spontaneous abortion in dairy cattle is about 2-5%, according to Virginia Cooperative Extension’s Abortions in Dairy Cattle and West Virginia University Extension’s Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers, and the expected successful insemination rate is 50% or higher with proper technique.

Don’t you think that if the rate of spontaneous abortion in livestock was skyrocketing that we’d have heard about it earlier? We’d see a huge spike in the cost of meat and dairy if farmers had to artificially inseminate their sows and cows an increased number of times to succeed in a pregnancy and if a high rate of those pregnancies resulted in late spontaneous abortions. What about the relative rates of AI success and spontaneous abortions in countries that use glyphosate and RR crops vs those that don’t? Shouldn’t we see major differences?

Dr. Huber claims that the “micro-fungus” has been detected “in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.” How was the claimed pathogen detected? With “laboratory tests”, of course! Unfortunately, zero explanation is provided of what these tests are, how or where they were conducted, etc.

Anecdotes aren’t sufficient evidence to justify policy changes

We are provided with an anecdote: “450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.”

Likely? This single word causes me to seriously doubt that a scientist wrote this letter. This anecdote is clearly not a scientific study because there are no controls and there is no confirmation of whether the feed did or did not have Roundup residues or the mysterious claimed pathogen present. To make conclusions based on a single situation we don’t even have details on is irresponsible at best. It is even more irresponsible to call for changes in national policy based on an anecdote.

Let’s consider this anecdote more closely. Glyphosate has been used as a herbicide since the 1970s. The amount of glyphosate use has increased with glyphosate resistant crops, and the amount of other herbicides used has decreased, at least until glyphosate overuse caused weeds to develop resistance (but that’s another story). As the use of Roundup and other glyphosate products has been increasing steadily, and crops that have been grown in fields that were treated with glyphosate have been being fed to livestock more and more over the years. If there is a link between glyphosate use and the rate of spontaneous abortions in livestock, then we should see a linear correlation between the two. In other words, the spontaneous abortion rate should be steadily increasing as glyphosate use has steadily increased.

Now let’s look at the two types of feed. Dr. Huber claims that 0% of heifers fed hay had abortions while 45% of heifers fed wheatlage (not wheatlege) had abortions. The wheat may or may not have been “under weed management using glyphosate”. Since there are zero genetically engineered varieties of wheat (Roundup Ready or otherwise) we know that the wheat itself was not sprayed with glyphosate because without the resistance gene it would die. Instead, glyphosate may have been used before the wheat was planted or along the edges of the field. Is this enough glyphosate to cause spontaneous abortions? If it was, then there would be a lot more abortions in livestock.

Can we think of anything else that may have caused the claimed abortion rates? Yes. Going back to the extension documents Abortions in Dairy Cattle and Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers, we learn that there are multiple causes for increased number of spontaneous abortions in cattle, including undiagnosed genetic abnormalities, heat stress and infection by certain types of viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Feed contamination with a variety of types fungi that produce toxins can also cause abortions in cattle, especially when the cattle are otherwise immunocompromised by things like stress or disease.

This anecdote can be easily tested by having two groups of randomly selected cattle fed feeds that are identical and grown under identical conditions except one has been under weed management with glyphosate and the other was weeded by hand or other non-chemical means.

Who is Don Huber?

We need to examine Dr. Huber’s experience and positions so we can determine whether he has relevant expertise to be discussing both the extraordinary claims made in this letter and his more reasonable claims that glyphosate could have an effect on mineral uptake and disease resistance. Unfortunately, the letter doesn’t lend him much credibility, assuming that he did indeed write it.

The letter is signed “COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)”. Dr. Huber retired in 2006 or 2007. He is listed as a faculty/staff member at Purdue but I wasn’t able to find a bio or CV page on the Purdue website (or indeed a bio or CV elsewhere, either, but that may be due to of all the blog posts re-posting the letter that may be pushing other results back more pages than I’m willing to sort through).

The NPDRS is a program called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 9 in 2004 “to ensure that the tools, infrastructure, communication networks, and capacity required to mitigate the impact of high consequence plant disease outbreaks are such that a reasonable level of crop production is maintained in the US.” It was “a cooperative effort of university, industry, and government scientists sponsored by The American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).”

As far as I can tell, the last activity of NPDRS was in 2008, and their list of recommendations on the USDA page is a broken link (the correct link is here). Dr. Huber completed work on late wilt of corn for NPDRS and was the chair for that project, but is not listed as the coordinator of NPDRS and I could find no mention of him being the coordinator of the APS side of the partnership. Instead, Kent Smith, a USDA employe, is listed as the contact person for NPDRS. Don Huber is not listed as an employee of the USDA at this time.

Dr. Huber is a member of the Emerging Diseases and Pathogens Committee of the American Phytopathological Society (APS). He served as President of the APS North Central Division in 1988, and has served on other APS committees throughout the years, but does not currently hold any leadership positions with APS that I was able to find.

What work has Dr. Huber done?

Photo of Dr. Huber from a 2010 article in No-Till Magazine.

A search on PubMed for DM Huber results in 11 papers (one of which is not this DM Huber), including these two most recent listings:

1. Thompson IA, Huber DM, Schulze DG. Evidence of a Multicopper Oxidase in Mn Oxidation by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Phytopathology. 2006 Feb;96(2):130-6. PMID: 18943915
2. Thompson IA, Huber DM, Guest CA, Schulze DG. Fungal manganese oxidation in a reduced soil. Environ Microbiol. 2005 Sep;7(9):1480-7. PMID: 16104870

I don’t know why PubMed has such paltry results. Web of Science provides 115 results for DM Huber in the Life Science category. None of the papers have any mention of a “micro fungus”. The two most recent are probably the most meaningful for this discussion. Each has been cited 9 times (mostly by the authors themselves).

1. Zobiole LHS, de Oliveira RS, Huber DM, et al. Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Plant and Soil. 2010 Mar;328(1-2):57-69.
2. Johal GS, Huber DM. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. European Journal of Agronomy. 2009 Oct;31(3 SI):144-152.

Long story short, assuming that at least half of the 115 papers in Web of Science are actually this DM Huber (at least some belong to a DM Huber at the University of Cincinnati), we can say that he is a well published scientist that has published relevant subject matter in some fairly reputable journals for his field, including Phytopathology as recently as 2007 which has an impact factor of 2.2 (out of 5) according to Journal Citation Reports (not great, but not bad, either). Dr. Huber appears to have relevant and recent expertise on the subject of the effects of glyphosate on mineral uptake and disease resistance.

Next steps for “micro fungus”

The claimed “micro fungus” may indeed be a never before seen pathogen, perhaps a virus. At this time, however, there is not enough evidence to require action. More data needs to be collected in well designed experiments that needs to then be subjected to peer review.

Peer review is the “checks and balances” of science. A team of researchers writes up a report of their experimental design and results and submits it to a journal. Before it is published, it is reviewed by a team of scientists who evaluate whether the experimental design is sound, whether the conclusions are supported by the data, whether the statistics were done properly, and so on. Peer review isn’t perfect for multiple reasons, but as of now it is the best form of quality control for scientific research that we have. For a very good discussion of what peer review means to scientists, see Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists? This is just one part of an excellent discussion of peer review in Nature that should be required reading for every scientist as well as anyone even slightly interested in what scientists do and how to interpret science: Nature’s peer review debate.

Getting a paper through the peer review process is a necessary part of science validation, in part because of its rigid requirements that go above and beyond what one might put in a letter or a blog post. For one scientist’s first person experiences with peer review, see From blog to Science (thanks to Mary M. for the referral). Avoidance of the peer review system indicates that a researcher knows that their work won’t pass muster.

It is through the peer review process that extraordinary claims can begin to accumulate enough evidence to become accepted. There are plenty of examples of researchers who had extraordinary, some would say impossible, claims that have been proven to be true. Here are two of my favorite examples:

Susan Lolle claimed to find some examples of non-Mendelian inheritance in the plants she was studying. It looked like the seeds were “remembering” what type of environment their parents were in, which seems impossible! Other scientists tore her papers up, and pretty much openly laughed at her. She persevered, kept doing more very well designed experiments, and eventually convinced other scientists she had something. Now we understand that epigenetics is a way that DNA can “remember” environmental conditions. It’s a very exciting and still very strange new field of genetics.

Stanley Prusiner claimed to have isolated the cause of mad cow disease, claiming it was a protein that was misfolded that caused other proteins to also misfold. Like Lolle, Prusiner sounded crazy. How could this be possible? Through perseverance and hard scientific evidence, Prusiner proved that he was right and eventually won the Nobel Prize in medicine.

Any scientist who thinks they’ve find something extraordinary can either give up or persevere. If I found something that was unexpected in a preliminary experiment, I’d redo it first. If the same thing resulted, I’d talk to statisticians and experts in the field, make sure my experimental design was top notch. If I still got the strange result then I’d find a well respected scientist in the same field and ask their lab to redo the experiment or at least part of it to make sure it wasn’t just my lab coming up with the weird results. If it then was still happening, it’d be time to publish an impressive paper in Nature or Science with my well respected colleague as a co-author.

Not following this sort of path is a major shortcoming for a lot of scientists who have found unusual things. For whatever reason, there seem to be a lot of examples of scientists finding results about genetic engineering that go against established science that don’t bother going past that initial finding. The example that first comes to mind is Arpad Pusztai. Why didn’t he work on much better experimental designs before going to publish? Why didn’t he talk to some experts in plant studies so he could have had the proper controls? He took his preliminary results from some poorly designed studies and then ran with it and now people wonder why his work isn’t taken seriously. If Dr. Huber wants to be taken seriously with his “micro fungus” claims then he needs to emulate Lolle and Prusiner, not Pusztai.

Conclusions

This letter makes very little sense both in its sheer existence and in its details. Why would a reasonably well published scientist suddenly throw away everything we know about the scientific method to make claims about biologically impossible organisms with no evidence? Why is so little evidence presented and why is the evidence that is presented given as anecdotes instead of hard science? Most importantly, why would he make claims without going through the peer review process to ensure that his claims would be at least vetted by his peers?

Multiple sites have claimed to have spoken with Dr. Huber to confirm that he did indeed write this letter, but I remain skeptical that an experienced scientist would have released something so unscientific. Someone with as much experience as Dr. Huber should know that his fellow scientists (as well as government agencies) would require at least some proof before acting on extraordinary claims. Fred Gerendasy at Cooking Up a Story, wonders if the letter is a fraud. Perhaps the letter is real and he knew that no one with any knowledge of biology would accept the claims, but also knew that many non-scientists would latch on to claims that confirmed their own biases without question.

Dr. Huber’s colleagues at Purdue have responded to his claims about glyphosate use and crop mineral uptake (which I describe in Does glyphosate restrict crop mineral uptake?), but they are conspicuously silent on the “micro fungus”. The absence of analysis of the “micro fungus” claims tells me that his colleagues are politely ignoring this bizarre outburst. I would have done so as well, if it wasn’t for the prolific repetition of the claims on blogs and even news sites. It’s long past time for us to apply the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science to Dr. Huber’s claims. Hopefully this post will give some balance to the discussion.

What are these chemicals that plants produce? What are they for? For the answers to these and many more questions about plant secondary metabolites, check out the teaser below and continue on to read Marc’s full post.

Green potato with solanine molecule. Images from Simply Recipes and Wikipedia.

A discussion about the secondary chemicals naturally present in fruits and vegetables, indeed in most sedentary or slow moving forms of life on earth including fungi and sea sponges, usually is immediate cause for raised eyebrows and furtive glances, especially in non-scientific circles.

By secondary plant metabolites, I mean the chemical by-products that are produced by primary plant metabolism. Primary plant metabolism involves the essential chemicals of life i.e.; carbohydrates, proteins, fats and chlorophyll that are directly involved in plant growth and development.

Secondary plant chemicals were, up until recently, thought to be either plant waste products or defensive chemicals for example, solanine, which is an alkaloid present in that green potato skin that you have been told not eat since you were a child, with good reason, it’s a nerve toxin and at high doses can induce sickness or even death. A 160 pound adult would probably need to eat several pounds of green potatoes to experience symptoms of dry mouth, heart palpitations and possibly delirium, a higher dose could cause paralysis and even death.