One of the big complaints about GMO plants is that the first generation were designed to meet the needs of industrial agriculture rather than consumers. Pesticide-resistance was added, not better taste. Now along comes a consumer-focused GMO plant and that is attacked too. It's very frustrating for those of us in the field.
It would be great if you or someone on your team did a blog post addressing this issue. I'm generally in favor of GMOs in all their forms, but there aren't many good, non-Monsanto, voices that get heard over the screedy shouters and milquetoast "better safe than sorry" types.
For instance, what is the real worst case scenario? Would it be Kudzu meets glow sticks? Man eating plants? Or just a bunch of $50 sprouts that only glow in the most technical sense of the word?
If you want to hear scientists un-affiliated with industry talk about genetic engineering in a thoughtful way, it's happening over at http://www.biofortified.org/
Worst case is probably accidentally creating a GMO plant that does something vary useful and also produces a novel toxin which Bio-accumulates and is not discovered. Under the right circumstances you could probably kill something like 10-100,000 people that way.
Beyond the "the seeds are sterile" and "if our genes wind up in your plants, we sue your hindquarters off" arguments, the worse-case (not necessarily "worst") scenarios I've heard involve things like Bt genes[1] potentially affecting non-pest insects and induced resistance in pest insects.
On the other hand, there's the whole "glow-in-the-dark pets as this month's fashion accessory" bit, but even that is not wildly different than typical pet breeding shenanigans.
GMO opponents often react reflixively without looking at specifics, but I think their fears are rooted in something real. Setting aside bad behavior from Monsanto specifically (suing farmers, patents, sterile seeds), there is both promise and peril to GMOs, even in the simple act of selective breeding that comprises most of the activity in that space.
My primary concern is the lack of long-term thinking in the drive for high production yield, and accompanying side effects to health and ecosystems. For instance, some claim that the high-yield "dwarf wheat" pioneered in the 60s is responsible for exacerbating gluten sensitivity: http://marksdailyapple.com/the-problems-with-modern-wheat/
There is also an overlapping concern with the broken patent system, and whether it is acceptable to "own" the genetic results of evolution, whether human-guided or otherwise. It's not hard to conceive of some scary slippery slopes there.
Each individual advancement is probably, on average, not a big deal, and probably a win for both providers and consumers. But if you aggregrate the accelerating advances over decades and centuries, I think there are real consequences for human health and the biosphere. I'm not advocating the elimination of GMOs (as if we could), but at minimum they deserve scrutiny, honest labeling, and long-term follow-up studies.
A major complaint about produce from mega farms is that they aren't grown for taste but pest-resistance or size or color. Since humans have tastebuds, taste is a pretty important factor and isn't considered.
We have eyes. We eat with our eyes. In fact, we buy with our eyes too. A sign saying "Trust me, I taste good because I was genetically engineered to!" doesn't exactly cut it for me. Outside of an odd berry or grape, you can't sample fruit before you buy it, and there's even no guarantee that that one tomato is going to taste like the one next to it, since you don't know how well (or not) the store is handling them once they get their hands on them...
I say this, but then again, it seems like I always complain about the tomatoes, no matter where I buy them. Show me a better tomato. Please.
Shoppers BUY with their eyes as well. A bright red, smooth, round, large tomato sells much faster than a dented, small, oddly shaped tomato. When it's cooked into a sauce you're never going to see it anyway.
>> Show me a better tomato. Please.
Grow your own. Heirloom tomatoes are very 'ugly' but they have so much flavor compared to those pink-ish orange softballs at the grocery stores.
Yeah, in most temperate climes tomatoes grow REALLY easily during the summer. (In tropical climes they grow easily the rest of the year.) Right now we're picking several gallons of tomatoes every couple of days, and this is from a garden I haven't weeded or tended really at all in like a month. (Well I did run a lawnmower over the non-tomato half of the garden a couple of weeks ago. That doesn't really deserve the name of "gardening".)
Yes. I would think that if this works, there could be other similar uses. If there are natural genes in plants that turn on vitamin production, why not engineer it?
It's a shame that they're destroying experiments. There are rational reasons to be concerned about GMO, but destroying tests doesn't help.
So I used to buy tomatoes at the grocery store. They were okay, I guess.
Then I started going to the local farmer's market. During spring and summer, there's a stand from a tomato farm. They have something like two dozen different varieties of heirloom tomatoes. Lots of different colors and sizes, and all of them have wonderfully intense tastes. They don't all taste the same, either. My mouth is a lot happier after eating one of those than a generic tomato from the grocery store. It's the difference between having a hamburger at McDonald's and a nicely-prepared cut of steak.
I'll still buy grocery store tomatoes in the winter, but the place with two dozen varieties of heirloom tomatoes gets my money when they've got tomatoes to sell.
Get yourself to a local farmer's market, find a stand selling lots of varieties of something you like, and do some experimenting. You won't want to go back to industrially-farmed stuff selected for disease resistance any more.
I almost don't think grocery store tomatoes have a taste anymore. It's like a generic, pulpy piece of fruit.
There's no yellow mottling where there'd be concentrations of sugar, however now they're bred to be just red (since consumers think a perfectly red tomato is a better tomato), and to be harder. The benefit is you can get a ripe tomato that can survive transit from Chile, but it's not exactly a great-tasting tomato.
They've done the same thing with peaches. White peaches are like a reboot of the peach. I mean, peach is a color, as your box of crayons would indicate. Now we just have a peach that's less sweet and easier to ship. I mean, imagine if you ordered a peach shirt, it showed up white, and you called to complain. They'd probably go, "Well, it's a white peach".
This doesn't change the thrust of your argument, but PayPal has released the funds.
"Indiegogo’s head of marketing communications, Shannon Swallow, confirmed that Indiegogo had talked to PayPal “indirectly” about GlassUp and said this morning “everything is good.”
I believe Amazon Payments cannot be used to pay people outside the US.
My understanding is that IndieGoGo initially picked up a lot of momentum from non-US based projects merely by offering a non-Amazon Payments based alternative.
I think the article is beating around the bush by calling this a "culture war" and stereotyping a lot of people as "techies," "hipster artists," "creatives," etc. Also, it really has nothing to do with whether the result is open sourced or not.
GMOs have become a purely political issue. Originally, they were a scientific and technological issue, but then big corporations got a hold of it, captured the regulatory bodies, bought^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobbied some politicians, and sued people all the way to the supreme court. So now it's a question of whether you believe people and corps should be free to tinker with genes and release them into the wild based on self-made safety studies, or whether there should be more laws to regulate (or even ban) GMOs.
So all the people threatening to quit Kickstarter over this are taking a political stand, whereas Kickstarter is more just trying to avoid the hot potato (GMO of course), just as they do with guns.
Is anyone aware of a well-articulated reasoning published by Kickstarter for this decision? It really does seem quite silly to arbitrarily disallow GMOs as something not worth funding, especially given that we've been doing it in one form or another for millenia.
EDIT: Clarified by a response, apparently they're only disallowing GMO rewards, not projects.
But they are not disallowing GMO projects. You just can't give out any GMO rewards. I still think it is a stupid addition to the rules but I just wanted to make sure we understood what they are limiting.
As the article points out, the main driver of all the big kickstarter campaigns is a reward. So in large part this decision prevents GMO work from being funded.
It's their choice... It's one out of ten-odd prohibitions on their website. In the end people working on GMOs are free to use other crowdfunders or roll their own (like I will). Kick starter isn't an entitlement
That number is a bit disingenuous, since some of the individual bullet points are pretty catch-all. For instance,
No bath, beauty, and cosmetic products; electronic surveillance equipment; eyewear (sunglasses, prescription glasses, and others); firearms, weapons, knives, weapon accessories, and replicas of weapons; medical, health, safety, and personal care products; or infomercial-type products.
Indeed. I meant for 10 to look large, not small. So, yes, kickstarter has its own reasons for banning various things; and just throw another one onto the heap. They don't bother explaining why these are banned, so why the double standard with GMOs?
Actually - all of these things have in common that they're regulated and I think kickstarter doesn't want to run afoul of penalties from regulatory breach or incur regulatory costs or burdens. To a certain degree (region dependent, use-dependent, etc) GMOs are the same way. Arabidopsis is a weed, but you can eat it. Anecdotally, it's quite tasty.
Ya my girlfriend who is in neuroscience would tell me everyday about dumb people in her lab ruining her gels, which means having to wait hours more for the next one.
She says she's never working in a lab again, even though she was very good at it. Her supervisor/superiors want to take her results. Her peers won't share or collaborate with her. And there are barely any online resources to really optimize/enhance her work and make her life easier.
Given the whole concept of Kickstarter is letting the crowd decide if a project is worth funding, it seems to me that in keeping with this mantra, they would be open to allowing any idea be opened up for funding. Not allowing GMOs as 'rewards' seems like a silly cop-out.
Giving in to complaints such as this by the community sounds good in the short-term, but will be very bad in the long-term. It is basically saying, if you don't agree with our morals, you're not welcome on Kickstarter. This will open up the door for many other niche crowdfunding sites to support projects that Kickstarter doesn't allow, and will ultimately bring them more competition.
It's worthwhile thinking that maybe kickstarter is just CYA (CIA?). Imagine this scenario: a GMO project is backed by kickstarter. Someone takes the seeds to somewhere in a foreign country that kickstarter operates in where GMO is banned. A fuss is raised, lawsuits, kickstarter is fined big time by this operating country (or is forced to close shop).
That's a good point. While the analogy isn't 100% correct, this seems similar to giving DMCA immunity to file sharing sites. They are just the enablers or pass-through agents, not the ones who commit the crimes. I'd be curious to know what laws actually could apply to this situation. Regardless, you can't innovate by not taking risks and having a cover your a attitude. If you don't take the risks, your competitor will, and if those risks pan out for your competitor, you'll go out of business anyway.
I'm pretty sure that that doesn't require every input used in creating the reward to be created by the project or its creators, so a T-Shirt created with (dead) GMO cotton which was produced by (e.g., screen printed under contract for) the project would still be allowed, even if neither the cotton nor the ink was produced by the project.
isn't this a bit extreme? I'm launching a science project that will use GMOs, and there will be other ways of crowdfunding. I was never in the position of using kickstarter from the outset... So this doesn't affect me, but I don't think it's really that much of a big deal. There are some really compelling projects on kickstarter, and your reaction seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
christ. how many apologies can you make for the company in one thread?
can't you give voodoomagicman a small fraction of the tolerance and respect you seem to have for kickstarter? for kickstarter, doing what they want is "their choice", but for anyone who decides to boycott in response it's "a bit extreme"? in your world do only commercial entities have free will?
the "extreme" part is not vodoomagicman choosing to drop kickstarter. The extreme part is him exhorting others to do so as well. Kickstarter, as far as I know, has not exhorted other crowdfunding outfits to also reject GMO projects.
Also, if I were in charge of kickstarter, I would not have made this decision.
Of course, but I can't really be moved to have all too much sympathy for those people. Kickstarter (and DIY bio funding) isn't an entitlement, and the enterprising DIY bioer looking to crowdfund can use any number of alternatives, from crowdtilt to indiegogo, or even roll their own (like lockitron did).
Being a bit introspective, maybe it's just the obsessive systematizer in me, but kickstarter (the noun, not the verb) really has always been associated with "art-like" project, and my brain irrationally wants to keep those silos up.
Also, when I was setting up my work, I thought about using kickstarter, and did a little bit of research (a couple of clicks of the mouse) and immediately realized that my project did not fit the terms and conditions of Kickstarter. Nobody weeped for me then, nor would I care to (and I'm continually having to explain to people why I can't use kickstarter), so maybe that's part of why I seem to be overly apologetic towards the company.
If you believe this is wrong then simply create a kickstarter competitor and let the market sort it out. After all there should be an opportunity there if they block certain reward structures.
