Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience
In reply to the discussion: Michael Pollan as GMO ‘denialist’ dupes credulous New York Times [View all]HuckleB
(35,773 posts)44. A Generous Offer to Dr. Huber -Turned Down
http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-generous-offer-to-dr-huber.html
"...
"I offer to sequence the genome of the pathogen and identify what it is," I said. "If Dr. Huber could kindly give me a small amount of the culture we could identify this new life form before Christmas."
I'm not bluffing here. We could do that. I could pay to have the libraries made and get several lanes of Illumina sequencing done in a few weeks. We'd get several hundred million 'reads' (small bits of data) that could be computationally assembled into a whole genome of his novel organism, if it actually existed. If it was real, we could have 300-fold coverage of its sequence. Completely do-able, and I'd pay for it.
"So can you send me cultures?" I asked.
What do you think his answer was? After a ten minute talk about the organism and how it is killing cattle and causing problems he said he would not send it.
I said, "Don, you say this is a crisis, that a new pathogen is causing disease in humans and plants, and you won't release it to the broader scientific community for eight years?"
..."
"...
"I offer to sequence the genome of the pathogen and identify what it is," I said. "If Dr. Huber could kindly give me a small amount of the culture we could identify this new life form before Christmas."
I'm not bluffing here. We could do that. I could pay to have the libraries made and get several lanes of Illumina sequencing done in a few weeks. We'd get several hundred million 'reads' (small bits of data) that could be computationally assembled into a whole genome of his novel organism, if it actually existed. If it was real, we could have 300-fold coverage of its sequence. Completely do-able, and I'd pay for it.
"So can you send me cultures?" I asked.
What do you think his answer was? After a ten minute talk about the organism and how it is killing cattle and causing problems he said he would not send it.
I said, "Don, you say this is a crisis, that a new pathogen is causing disease in humans and plants, and you won't release it to the broader scientific community for eight years?"
..."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
Ok, let's look to the scientists for safety of 'food additives,' where most are exposed to GMOs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#1
YOU: Reject Pollan on GMOs, not a scientist. ME: Fine. Read this knowing that GMOs = food additives.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#6
Food additives derived from GMO corn, GMO soy, GMO canola, GMO cottonseed are indeed 'GMOs.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#11
I said you were in la la land, and then you further prove it with your response.
HuckleB
Oct 2013
#13
The science-based links are at odds with the business-based links. Got cognitive dissonance?
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#19
SEE POST #1, please note depth and breadth of analysis of currently abysmal state of affairs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#21
Hardly. Here are all the links separated from the news aggregating sites you're so fond of dissing.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#23
That translates into a whole lotta recent science w zero relevance of personal attacks on M.Pollan.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#24
The update was to my own post which lit up the yellow tab for MY POSTS and linked to this old post.
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#48
PRESS RELEASE > Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health: Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Change
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#2
Nope, The American Society for Reproductive Medicine & The American College of Obstetricians and Gyn
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#7
GMO's are mainly consumed as food additives which scientists, not Pollan, are assessing in my links.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#12
No need to be rude. The whole world (slightly exaggerated) apart from the US is wrong? Snort. nt
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#16
Oh, please, it's a PRESS RELEASE backed by 57,000 ob-gyns + 7.000 reproductive medicine specialists.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#8
RECOMMENDED Press Statement, along with Pollan's brilliant 'Food Rules: An Eater's Manual.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#26
Check it out. DISCLAIMER: Recognized experts, although I have no familiarity with Robbins or event.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#31
Please see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-NEW-PROTEINS
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#33
Ah, I see you've posted from the highly respected science magazine Elle
EvolveOrConvolve
Oct 2013
#35
Go figure. Your source cynically parses words or is woefully uninformed.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#38
"This is not a hit piece on Michael Pollan" - I'd hate to read what the author does consider
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2013
#40
If that's your understanding, may I suggest due diligence necessitates additional reading?
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#49