Here's another misleading item in that story. It looks like the same kind of "bad science" the Royal Society is talking about...at face value, a lot like the "potato fraud" story:
(the story says)
A comparison of the fertilisation rate of plants that were
mutated to make them resistant to chlorsulphuron
herbicide, and plants that were genetically altered for the
same trait, showed the genetically altered plants fertilised
other plants at a rate 20 times greater than that of the
mutants.
(my reponse)
What do they mean by "mutated to make them resistant"; I am aware that radiation and chemical damage have been applied to mutate plants. That being the case, the other characteristic of such mutation is gross genetic damage to many areas of the plants characteristics, including the ability to pollinate. So it would be no surprise that an undamaged (gene altered)plant would be able to pollinate 20 times better than a horribly damaged mutant. A proper scientific study would also include the control of a standard plant, to measure its pollination rate; the gene modified plant should have the same capacity for pollination as the control. And then there are the variables introduced by chlorsulphuron itself, and how these relate to pollination. Also, there is the question of how this study relates to actual herbicide traits which are deployed in the field, since
I am not aware of a commercial system which involves the trait they mention.
A bad science study is easy to come up with and report, apparently. At face value, the statement about "20 times" seems to be the goal of this study, as long as it is thrown in with the words "genetically altered" and "herbicide". Anyone want to guess why such a story might surface?
Message 8040326
|
