Re-post from Lisa & Ian Murray:
..But these negative findings aren't the end of the story, Heritage warns. "That doesn't mean there aren't conditions where it might be taken up and activated." Next, he plans to test the fate of the bla gene when the maize is fed to sheep. (Andy Coghlan)
Then Carl Remick:
`... British researchers report having tried and failed ...'
Pretty much the story of the past century, innit? ;-)
Carl
----------------
I never know who I am addressing in this comb Lisa or Ian--oh, well. Carl R. look at the above and think about it. What's wrong with this picture, besides a dig at the Brits? This is indeed a new kind of science, and I am thrilled to see it promulgated (see PS for detail)
My arguments for opposition to GM food are based on its potential given US patent law, to facilitate and promote the monopoly practices of predatory capitalism and its use as an instrument of US imperialism--excuse me, foreign policy.
In any event, it needs to be pointed out to the worships on the committee that a negative finding is indeterminant and non-predictive according to the consensus of what qualifies as scientific evidence.
In other words such studies are meaningless, and prove nothing, precisely because there was no result.
This study was too obviously a political/commercially inspired charade. No scientist in their right mind would design a experiment under the logic that the failure to find a result could be counted as a fact of scientific value. Who looks for what probably won't happen?
On the other hand, this argument can be used by the opponents of GM food to claim with absolute certainty, that the absence of evidence of risk is not evidence of the absence of risk. This is part of the wonder of the non-predictive logic under which the studies and the propaganda wars are preceding.
Chuck Grimes
PS. If these jerks at Leeds can get funded and published on negative results, then my science buddies have reams of negative results that need funding. Can you please forward the committee's e-mail and snail mail address? If you're worried that word will get out about this gold mine, off-list is fine.
If the committee's into maize, boy we've got almost eleven years worth on maize (big into Lazy and Zea mays)--genetics, molecular and cell biology, physiology--the works. How about five years on arabidopsis--Norvartis should like some of this since they bought the lab and grad students over at Koshland. How about something on hydra and cyanobacteria? This one has some very classy rejections: DOE, LBL, NSF, NIH, NASA. I personally would highly recommend this work to the committee in light of its absolute failure to produce any result whatsoever. Allow me to quote the glowing remark of one of the reviewers at LBL, "What did you expect? That you were going to create Life?"
Trust me, we're ready as soon as they are. God, I can't wait to get out of wheelchairs.