

Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds - feelthepain
http://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517

======
sampo
Here's a comment I also left at the website:

I read the original article, and Wang et al. measure fitness by (i) measuring
photosynthesis in glasshouse-grown plants (ii) measuring seed germination on
wet paper in petri dishes and (iii) growing plants in garden (grown 20 cm
apart, fertilized, hand-weeding and insecticides applied).

We probably can assume that the extra copies of EPSP synthase genes increase
the metabolic throughput (by boosting some of the protein synthesis pathways)
of the plants, and when grown in abundant light (20 cm apart, no shadowing and
competition from neighbouring plants), water and nitrogen (grown in garden
conditions, fertilized), it is plausible that these individual grow faster and
larger. This is all that Wang et al. did and all that their article claims.

The higher throughput capacity only comes into use if supplies of energy or
raw materials are not bottlenecks.

But the Nature News conclusions "effects of such modification have the
potential to extend beyond farms and into the wild" and "genetic diversity [of
wild rice], which is really important to conserve, could be threatened because
the genotype with the transgene would outcompete the normal species" are very
much unsupported by the results of Wang et al.

In the wild, seeds may need to germinate in more challenging conditions that
wet paper on a petri dish, there may not be abundant light, nitrogen or water.

So the EPSP synthase -boosted plants grow better in the garden. But maybe
there is a good reason why the EPSP synthase levels are lower in the plants
from the wild. Maybe something else is more valuable to them, something that
helps in e.g. low-light photosynthesis, nutrient or water uptake in scarce
conditions, or defence against insects. Maybe the wild EPSP levels are just
optimal for growing in wild conditions and the plants with boosted EPSP
synthase levels would have lower fitness in wild conditions. (I assume that
the higher levels of the synthase don't come for free, but have a related
metabolic cost that cannot then be used elsewhere).

As Wang et al. only measured fitness in garden, not in the wild, the Nature
News conclusions are unwarranted.

~~~
feelthepain
And Nature News have replied: As far as I can see, we have not reached any
definitive conclusions about what will happen in the wild. The article warns
what -could- happen and the -possible- consequences of such transgene spread.
The sentence that you cite is a direct quote from Brian Ford-Lloyd, a plant
geneticist at the University of Birmingham, UK (as the article clearly notes),
who was unoconnected with the current study. He goes on to say: “This is one
of the most clear examples of extremely plausible damaging effects [of GM
crops] on the environment.” If you take issue with -his- conclusions, why not
contact him? One of the key findings here is that, contrary to what many have
argued, transgenes -may- confer some value/advantages to wild species. At
least, this is no longer something that can be ruled out.

~~~
sampo
Yes I went there and replied to that, too.

------
simonh
The authors of the study assume that the changes they found in their modified
crop are beneficial, but that's purely an assumption on their part. On the
face of it higher rates of photosynthesis, more shoots, etc sound great but in
practice there could be all kinds of selective pressures on wild crops that
would make these adaptations undesirable.

In poor soil, adverse weather, etc these adaptations might make the plant burn
itself out too quickly like a sprinter in a marathon race. The emphasis on
growth might weaken it's immune system, or make it more susceptible to disease
in other ways.

I'm always interested in these studies on how engineered changes interact with
the wider ecosystem and make their way into other organisms. I'm not dissing
the research, it sounds like a valuable study, but finding potentially
advantageous changes in the lab and finding those changes actually confer an
advantage in the wild are two wholly different things.

~~~
sampo
_" On the face of it higher rates of photosynthesis, more shoots, etc sound
great but in practice there could be all kinds of selective pressures on wild
crops that would make these adaptations undesirable._"

Thank you for a very valuable comment. It's nice to see understanding of plant
ecophysiology in Hacker News.

So, I went to the original article [1] and this is about how they measure
fitness:

 _" Measurement of photosynthetic rates [...] We used glasshouse-grown GE and
non-GE F3 plants"_

 _" Seed germination experiment [...] Seeds were germinated on wet filter
paper in Petri dishes."_

 _" Field experiments [...] Common garden experiments were conducted [...] 36
plants were planted in a 6x6 grid with 20 cm between plants [...] weeds were
removed by hand-weeding [...] urea (nitrogen) per 100 m2 was applied [...]
Insecticides that are commonly used in rice fields were applied"_

So, fitness is measured in (i) glasshouse (ii) on wet filter paper in
laboratory and (iii) in garden conditions, with fertilizers and insecticides
applied.

Now, the original article doesn't claim anything beyond that, and a case can
be made that the natural environment of a weed is _in_ in the rice field (with
fertilizers and insecticides), but the Nature article says _" effects of such
modification have the potential to extend beyond farms and into the wild"_ and
like you said, measuring fitness in glasshouse/lab/garden conditions tells
pretty much nothing about fitness in the wild beyond farms.

[1]
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12428/abstrac...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12428/abstract)

------
bencollier49
This seems peculiar. I can't understand why, if this relatively
straightforward modification in the production of EPSP conferred such a major
advantage to the organism, that it didn't develop as a result of natural
selection.

There has to be a downside that this study didn't pick up. Perhaps the change
makes the plant more attractive to pests?

~~~
tomp
A simple reason could be that the gene just never happened to appear in the
DNA; natural selection cannot "develop" new genes, in can only "select" which
of the existing (combination of) genes are better.

~~~
guard-of-terra
There are several ways how a part of genome can suddently be duplicated with
all its genes. That's how every species have different number of chromosomes.

I might guess that competitive advantage only apply where weeds are bad: in
fields. Before fields there were no advantage to this.

~~~
jrkatz
Right, but that's not natural selection, that's mutation. Natural selection
can pick up on the changes after they've taken place.

e.g., There's presumably a gene out there that makes humans twice as
intelligent at absolutely zero expense, and although if it were to appear it
would be selected for, it it clearly hasn't happened yet. Natural selection
can't drive that to occur.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Is there a gene already in human DNA which would make humans two times smarter
if repeated / made more active? That's what happens with weed rice.

Btw the answer can be yes. We are no longer constrained by food concerns but
our genome does not account for that yet.

------
belorn
The implication of cross-pollination on genetic patents is quite far reaching.
Sooner or later, more lawsuits will pop up, and the Supreme Court is going to
have to decide again. The narrow scope of Bowman v. Monsanto Co. is unlikely
to be enough if farmers use plants of different species.

I wonder slightly at what point an plant still inhabits the "invention". 99%
genetic similarity to the patent? 10%? 1%? At what point does it losses the
attribute of being the property of Monsanto?

------
forgottenpaswrd
This is not a "benefit". I want roundup to kill crops, as it should.

And I want roundup away from my plants and my environment. Thanks.

I love how PR could twist a bad to make it a good. Hey, we don't have a way to
control our GM crops contaminating other crops!! How great is that! By the
way,pay me for using my intellectual property that is in your crops even when
you don't want it, as it is a benefit for you.

~~~
Xylakant
it's "benefit" as in "benefit for the plant". What's good for the weed is not
always good for the farmer though. This is not a PR piece trying to spin a bad
thing into a good thing but an article pointing out a real problem with gm
crops.

~~~
stinos
"Good" for the weed would be if RoundUp weren't used in the first place. Then
there would be no benefit whatsoever.

------
novalis
In a way I find it rather unfortunate that gmo's lack of self termination is
being given a beneficial spin of sorts, maybe because we are now balls out
with this "hey, it's a conjoin real world test either you like it or not"
approach from PR. Reading through it actually sobers up the title effect.

------
fixxer
No real secret that this is happening. I've heard/seen the evidence from USDA-
ARS and top agronomists from industry.

The reality is quite simple: our soils are going to end up looking a lot more
like they did in the past (doused with nasty chemicals; stuff that will make
environmentalists miss Roundup).

Despite the flaws of GMO crops, our soils in the Midwest are about as clean
(in terms of pesticide/herbicide) as they've ever been during industrial
agriculture. (Yes, yes, I realize the fertilizer situation is dire -- that is
a separate problem and a massive area for research & innovation)

Agriculture is and always has been about chemical warfare. Plant and insects
evolve over _seasons_. The only difference is that now humans are helping
plants along. And yes, I emphasize "helping" because I see _zero_ potential in
non-GMO crops feeding humanity in the long run. It is one thing to grow tasty
heirloom tomatoes in your yard and quite another to produce commodity grain at
scale sufficient enough to meet global demand. I hear so many armchair
environmentalists equate the two; very frustrating.

~~~
keithnoizu
I don't know a few victory gardens and vertical farms could stretch things out
for quite a ways before we need to fully switch to GMO in order to survive.

~~~
fixxer
For veg, sure. I'm all for it. Great way to teach and learn, as well. For
example, squirrels aren't so cute after they destroy you entire tomato crop...
lil' fuckers.

But grain is such a process and such an _amazing_ supply chain. I don't see
that being replicated.

------
feelthepain
Apparently whether transgenes spread from GM crops to wild species remains
controversial - though there have been some reports of this happening in the
past. [http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-
cr...](http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-
crops-1.12907) >>In 2003, Snow and her colleagues showed that when Bt
sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) were bred with their wild counterparts,
transgenic offspring still required the same kind of close care as its
cultivated parent but were less vulnerable to insects and produced more seeds
than non-transgenic plants. Few similar studies have been conducted, says
Snow, because the companies that own the rights to the technology are
generally unwilling to let academic researchers perform the experiments.<<

~~~
Blahah
In this case, weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea) is actually just the same
species as cultivated rice (O. sativa), and the two do interbreed freely (as
per definition of species in plants).

------
api
I've gotten into so many flame wars over GMO by taking a side that is
sympathetic to anti-GMO activists.

I have a degree in biology. I'm sympathetic to the activists even though I do
not agree _scientifically_ with many of their claims. Thing is that I can see
why they are skeptical of GMOs and why they do not trust the companies making
them, and I don't think their reaction is especially irrational.

And I've always been skeptical of GMOs for different reasons. I studied
evolutionary biology a lot, and the set-up that you get with GMOs always
struck me as similar to the set-up you get when you over-use one single
antibiotic. At first it works beautifully, but then the bugs adapt. In this
case the entire ecosystem adapts.

Transgenes are natural. Horizontal gene transfer happens all the time. This
destroys a lot of the BS claims of the activists, but it is _also_ a problem
for the supposed benefits of GMO crops... as we see here.

I also think the issue of patents and self-reproducing organisms is a legal
hell-hole.

~~~
sampo
_" And I've always been skeptical of GMOs for different reasons."_

In a way, this is nothing new. When Norman Borlaug was working to save the
couple of billion lives with his green revolution, also his plant breeding
methods (which we now see as traditional, totally natural and acceptable) were
often seen a unnatural and potentially dangerous:

"Throughout his years of research, Borlaug's programs often faced opposition
by people who consider genetic crossbreeding to be unnatural or to have
negative effects."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Criticisms_and_h...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Criticisms_and_his_view_of_critics)

 _" I also think the issue of patents and self-reproducing organisms is a
legal hell-hole."_

There actually exists plant breeder's rights for traditional (non-GMO)
varieties, so the situation with patents may not be so much different:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights)

~~~
api
Borlaug's rebuttal definitely applies to some anti-GMO activists, who can
easily be described as privileged Western elites engaging in fashionable
protest.

At the same time, there are some long-term criticisms that are not mentioned
here. Borlaug's methods are almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels for
example, so there has long been a criticism that he simply delayed the
inevitable. When the fossil fuels run out, modern agriculture will collapse.

 _Right now_ that is definitely true. It would be possible to evolve
technologically to the point that it isn't, but so far that's been a slow
slog.

There is a similar criticism to be made about present-day GMO tactics, and I
allude to it in my OP: they buy temporary wins but are not sustainable due to
selection effects and horizontal gene transfer diluting them over time. A lot
of the ecological/sustainability crowd are basically arguing that we have to
look for permanent solutions, not temporary gains, and that temporary gains
have a way of degrading the environment in ways that make permanent solutions
more difficult.

What it _really_ boils down to is this:

[http://citizenactionmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/worl...](http://citizenactionmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/world-
pop-time.jpg)

If that graph doesn't scare the living shit out of you, you aren't thinking
about it very deeply.

Is this a permanent shift, or is it a bubble? If it is a bubble, its collapse
will result in suffering beyond our capacity to even imagine.

~~~
sampo
_" When the fossil fuels run out, modern agriculture will collapse."_

We fertilize crops, especially with nitrogen, because the triple bond in
atmospheric N≡N is a tough nut to break. We use chemical engineering (in this
case, high pressure and heat, google Haber-Bosch process) to fix the nitrogen
from the air on behalf of the plants.

This requires energy, but any cheap energy would do, it doesn't need to be
from fossil fuels.

------
jostmey
There are so many things wrong with this article!

(1) The researchers did _NOT_ observer genes crossing over from the GMO to the
wild, weedy form of the rice in a Natural setting.

(2) The authors argue that the new genetic material, if it were to escape into
the wild, would reduce genetic diversity and that this would be harmful. But
by the very nature adding a new gene, genetic diversity has actually been
increased.

~~~
sampo
_" The researchers did NOT observer genes crossing over from the GMO to the
wild, weedy form of the rice in a Natural setting."_

What you say is true, they didn't observe than. But weedy rice (Oryza sativa
f. spontanea) is the same species as rice (Oryza sativa), so gene crossing is
not far-fetched, it's to be expected in any case.

------
D9u
Sort of like antibiotics resulting in more resistant bacteria...

------
JoeAltmaier
...and regular corn does too. Is this news?

------
Mordor
plot twist: it's Monsanto which is the real weed

------
brudgers
"Weed" has no botanical meaning. That's a clue that there's something other
than straight up science occurring in the article.

~~~
coldtea
And water has no chemical meaning. But you see it in chemistry papers all the
time...

~~~
gamblor956
Unless the meaning of "water" has changed sometime in the past second, water
is the liquid form of the chemical substance dihydogen oxide (i.e., H2O). This
is the same meaning its had since the atomic components of water were first
determined...

~~~
coldtea
> _Unless the meaning of "water" has changed sometime in the past second,
> water is the liquid form of the chemical substance dihydogen oxide (i.e.,
> H2O)_

That's "pure water".

In 99.999% of the cases the term "water" is used as the impure mixture of H20
with tons of added substances, from fluoride to sodium, magnesium etc.

