*Objections to genetically modified crops*
They are mostly based on threats to public health and local environment. How should scientists respond to such protests? What should the Philippine government do? Last week, I shared four news reports about GM eggplant. One of them was "Eggplant war: Scientists defend GMO" (Philippine Star, May 1, 2012). It says, "Top Filipino scientists have urged the Supreme Court to junk a petition filed by environmental groups against the field testing of genetically modified (GMO) eggplant in the country." The report also says, "Emil Javier, president of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and former president of the University of the Philippines, said 'Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) eggplant is potentially the best environmentally friendly technology for eggplant production.' ” More at, < http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=802444&publicationSubCategoryId=68 > Two other news reports I cited are from the journals *Nature Biotechnology*(10 Jan 2011) and *Science* (12 Feb 2010). They are “Filipinos back GM eggplant<http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n1/full/nbt0111-9c.html>” and “After Acrimonious Debate, India Rejects GM Eggplant<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/767.short>. In the Philippines, what is real the state of GM crop research, or in particular, the Gt eggplant, the genetic modification? This is the question I raised in my comment last week. The established way to answer this is with the research performance, as measured by internationally accepted criteria. I made a search with Advanced Google Scholar on Bt eggplant. This gave 205 results. Included are various kinds of papers and publications -- in journals, proceedings, institutional reports, as book chapters, as books, etc. -- in the form of research papers, reviews, viewpoints, letters, news, etc. Of interest would be research papers published in peer-reviewed international journals. Let me just again make this clear. As previously discussed in this forum, those journals are the highly cited ones among the ISI-indexed journals. They best meet the internationally accepted criteria and standards, or to be sure, those covered in *Science Citation Index* (SCI) or *Social Sciences Citation Index* (SSCI). In rating research performance, these are the ones taken seriously, and that count in international evaluation for recognition, awards, and performance ranking. Out of the 205 accessed items, those published in SCI or SSCI-indexed journals are 41. These were published in 2005 - 2012 (the search was made for 1992-2012). Authors of the 41 papers in best cited journals are dominated by India (with 12 papers) and the USA (9). The Philippines has 2 papers -- Desiree Hautea, UPLB, coauthor of a 9-author paper in *Experimental Agriculture*and Jinky Leilanie Lu, UP Manila, sole author of a paper in *Water, Air, & Soil Pollution*. Filipino authors produced numerous papers that contributed to the total 205 results, but outside the 41 SCI or SSCI-indexed. If you made a similar search for our research on other genetically modified organisms, you would hardly see a better result. Hence, our scientists will have to improve their research performance by publishing their work properly -- in SCI or SSCI-indexed journals. This is the only way we can develop competitive ability. And only then will our scientists be credible to convince the government and the general public (that support their research), with their position against the objectors of GM crops. The Editorial of the journal Nature yesterday (10 May 2012) is for our scientists, government, and the public to think about seriously. It deals with the GM wheat in UK. I think it is most relevant to all countries, regardless of their state of development or underdevelopment. "*Misplaced protest*," Nature 10 May 2012. Here are excerpts: The rejection of genetic modification of crops on spurious scientific grounds threatens the environment it claims to protect. To feed a population likely to top 9 billion in 2100, we are going to need to change the way we grow our food. Harking back to old-fashioned methods and talking up organic farming will not do it. Genetic modification alone will not do it, but it could be a crucial tool and one that it is foolish to oppose on sentimental or ideological grounds. GM crops could significantly reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and provide greater tolerance to a more extreme climate. True, we are still in the early stages of this technology. And there are some legitimate concerns, such as possible leakage of GM material into the local environment. But to destroy experiments such as the one (on GM wheat) at Rothamsted (UK) before the outstanding questions can be answered is more than local vandalism, it is recklessness on a global scale. Full text at, <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/485147b.html> For us, it follows from the above problems, observations, and discussion that our outspoken academics should improve their views of doing research, and our silent well-published scientists should speak up. Our present grad students should get the training they deserve and know their future social responsibility in building a nation. On our scientists will partly depend convincing politicians and useful decision-making. All of which ultimately depends on the governments' putting the right people in charge. Crucially are in higher education and science institutions. <http://opinion.inquirer.net/27527/energy-crisis-and-climate-change>. Florlaca ---------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Filipino Librarians" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/filipinolibrarians?hl=en.
