…and BigPharma

They certainly have dinero for the venue, food, bev, A/V, PR glossies, web, etc…why not speakers??? you want professionals or amateurs?

perhaps, they should watch Harlan Ellison’s you tube video on pay the writer. Quite interesting.

That’s the major problem with some of these CONferences esp CHI (well known for their tactics and spamming/junk mails) and other for profits that try to mooch and seek freebies–imbeciles willing to give free talks, free presentations at an event that IS charging thousands per registrant. Those that apparently do not value their time, expertise, or experience. Perhaps, those that speak are trust funders, or wealthy hobbyists?

They charge massive amounts for registration (1200-1800$) and then do not pay their speakers–you get whatcha pay for. youngin, “exposure” seekers, those seeking to pad their CV with invited speaker nonsense.

Curious, does CHI get paid, do you go to petrol station and get free fuel? are those mortgages free, dinner out is that free? how about electricity is that free?

how about education to get that degree to speak–is that free too? Get a plumber tell him that you’ll cover up to 500$ in supplies, and labour is free, and they can have 10 people watch them plumb and that will be oh so great exposure.

When you pick my brain, you pick my pockets. Pay me.

In other words, I care about the destination — open access. Publishers can choose for themselves whether they want to be on board the train, or obstructions on the line. What’s clear is that CHORUS won’t get us to that destination.

Michael Eisen is basically right on the fundamentals: There would be a huge conflict of interest if compliance with the White House Open Access (OA) mandate were left to publishers instead of researchers and their institutions, and publishers would do everything possible to sabotage the policy.

Nothing much can be said in favor of David Wojick’s points except that it is true that Michael’s focus is largely on Gold OA publishing, PMC, and re-use rights (“Libre OA”) over and above free online access rights (“Gratis OA”), whereas the White House Open Access mandate is for Green OA self-archiving in researchers’ OA repositories.

Further re-use rights are also more controversial than free online access rights because they encourage publisher embargoes (to prevent immediate free-riding by rival publishers); nor are they needed nearly as urgently and universally as immediate free online access is needed by authors and users in all disciplines today. (As much Libre OA as users need and authors wish to provide will certainly follow after universal Green Gratis OA has been successfully mandated and provided globally, but it must not be made into a needless obstacle today.)

For a different perspective on the self-serving attempt of the publishers’ lobby to try to undermine the intent of the White House OA mandate under the pretext of helping it along and saving money, see: <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html"CHORUS&quot;: Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry.

What made the Genetic Roulette documentary compelling was, in fact, the steady stream of HIGHLY-qualified scientists who are expressing grave concerns. Here is but one summary of fully-qualified scientists writing in peer-reviewed journals, whose studies show cause for concern:

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/labelgmos/pages/34/attachments/original/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf?1321839924

You may not agree with all the studies, such as their statistical methods, choice of mouse strain, thoroughness of physical and biochemical assessment, or validity of control group comparisons–but that is going both ways in this debate. It is unfair to accuse people concerned about GMO’s as ignorant and evenly relying on “junk science”.

The fact is that selective breeding and genetic recombination are TOTALLY different, and should not be compared. Selective breeding only uses pre-existing genetic material. Basically, you are eliminating heterozygosity for the qualities you are seeking to express. In contrast, recombinant genetic modification is un-natural in that a completely foreign genetic sequence is spliced into the host DNA. We may say, “Oh, its just a little sequence from a bacteria, a fungus, a pig, or whatever.” But we have created a new combination of chemicals, and are now feeding it to people.

Moreover, with the dazzling complexity of the cell, and the fact that we are discovering new processes and structures at high rate of speed, with no end in sight , it is highly unlikely that we really know the full implications of any novel arrangement of the DNA. Has anyone at Monsanto, Syngenta, et al., thoroughly sequenced the TOTAL modification to the genetic code, then searched the cells of the corn, soy (or whatever) for new substances that will be ingested by the people?

As Syngenta so well describes BT Corn’s mode of operation: “When eaten by a corn borer, Bt protein is broken down by digestive enzymes in the larva’s alkaline (basic pH) intestine, generating a shorter protein that binds to specific receptor proteins in the wall of the intestine of the target insect pest. This damages the cell membrane, making it leaky, and stopping the larva in its tracks.” http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/research-and-development/biotechnology/Pages/biotechnology-bt-corn.aspx

Do we really know this is not happening to humans after 20 years of ingesting countless products made with BT corn in its various forms, from corn cereal to tortillas, corn chips, things made with corn syrup, etc? The arguments over allergens seems to miss this possibility. They keep focussing on a straight allergy to a new protein sequence–not to the possibility of compromising the human intestinal tract, with resulting allergic reactions to food. That would indeed explain the bizarre proliferation of food allergies to all kinds of food. I mean, why are kids in this generations allergic to things like peas, etc, etc?

People have a right to know what they are being fed. GMO labeling should not only be done, it should be specific. “This product contains genetically modified organisms that produce an internal pesticide of the Cry1AB type, which cannot be removed from the food.” “Contains RoundUp-Ready (c) corn, soybeans, and sugar beets”. It is grossly unfair to force people to eat artificial (and I mean that) ingredients without notice. Especially when we are talking about the MAIN ingredient of the food such as corn or soy, not just a trace ingredient like food coloring, flavoring, or emulsification promoter! You may think its safe–most of us don’t. You want to eat it, and feed it to your infants as their bodies and brains are developing, go ahead–but do us the courtesy of labeling your experimental food so we can avoid it.

Further, there is no human study that I know of, on the effects of these various recombinant DNA sequences and their resulting un-natural combinations of chemicals upon the human as it develops in the womb and in early childhood. HOWEVER, the skyrocketing of food allergies and autism is in sync with the proportion of GMO’s in the food supply. When I was a kid, NOBODY I knew had either. Now, its epidemic! It cannot be proved yet, as far as I know, that GMO’s are the cause. Vaccines? The proliferation of electromagnetic activity from cell phones/TV/Internet/ microwaves? GMO’s? Artificial ingredients? TV watching? A combo of them all? Hard to tell. But the statistical correlation is there: we should be very, very cautious, when it comes to feeding people un-natural combinations of genetically recombined ingredients. We should be aggressively pursuing research in this matter–by objective researchers.

One the main problems with the whole GMO issue is the heavy conflict of interest at FDA, which has clouded the whole issue. Paul Taylor should never have been the one to oversee the GM issue at FDA, and should not be a “food safety officer” today. Nor should anyone with a vested interest. It would be like allowing an employee of Northrup or Boeing to oversee defense contract awards.

Bottom line: I salute Jeffrey Smith as I would salute Ralph Nader. Not a trained scientist–but someone who is at least getting out the picture of genetic modification in a way people can understand. And as I would salute Rachel Carson–who by the way, battled the same corporation. You don’t remember the cute ads for DDT, do you? “DDT is good for meeeee!” sang the cute housewife, the cow, the chicken, the dog, the apple, and the peanut.

And note the copy on the ad for the now-infamous DDT: “The great expectations held for DDT have been realized. During 1916, exhaustive scientific tests have shown that, when properly used, DDT kills a host of destructive insect pests, and is a benefactor of all humanity.”

How like today: let’s substitute: “The great expectations held for GMO’s have been realized. During 2013, exhaustive scientific tests have shown that, when properly used, GMO’s kill a host of destructive insect pests, and is a benefactor of all humanity.”

They didn’t really do the kind of testing needed to find out how destructive DDT was, not only to humans, but to the entire ecosystem–did they?

It is chilling how the toxicology of DDT echoes back to the GMO question. In the short term, appears OK, but long-term, uh-oh.

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/ddt-ext.html

We are playing with fire. I say, an immediate ban on all GMO’s for human consumption until all conflict of interest is removed from the FDA; the initial evidence is re-examined (FDA scientists had concerns that were not properly aired, from what I have read), and THOROUGH study done on EVERY GMO proposed for release. If it passes the test and is released, then CLOSE MONITORING, not just “oh we trust you guys to keep things in good order ’cause its just ‘natural’ ingredients.” Any food with GMO content to be labelled, at least with “Contains Genetically Modified ingredients”. If the GM is more than, say, 1% of the product then more detail is required: “Contains Genetically Modified Corn, Soy, Canola, and Sugar Beets”.