Feeding the world in 2050
We have plenty of food, so why do 1 billion still go hungry or are malnourished? Food security is a complex problem and will only get more complex because by 2050 we are predicted to have another 3 billion mouths to feed. Some of the ability to feed these people this will require better scientific knowledge.
TechNyou is running a National Science Week public forum on 18 August in Adelaide to probe one aspect of this problem, namely the potential role GM (transgenic) technologies can play. So with exemplary timing Nature has just put published a series of features, editorials and opinions on how to feed a hungry world.
In a nutshell
Technically, it will be a cinch to feed an extra 3 billion people. The question is what costs are we prepared to incur to achieve it?
It is made clear that there are solutions requiring technology and other more elemental ones such as improved agronomic practices and the development of the ecosystems to support them, that will be required to feed all these people. And a number of views suggest the cost needn’t be all that great. Of course, there is the cynical view that politics, big business, corruption….and so on will continue on the same and circumvent any good intentions to find ways of feeding 9 billion people. My cynicism wavers.
The science being done
The articles cover research underway worldwide to find ways of growing more food in the same space.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says we could double the existing crop land — mostly from Latin America and Africa — without stuffing the environment or impinging on our urban lifestyles. But the consensus seems to be on intensification of existing land, but in a sustainable way, though, I find the definition of sustainable a slippery beast. It is a bit like religion, there are many interpretations of the same word, and people can usually find a way to make it work in their favour. See Food: a growing problem
On the topic of the multi-nationals, the article by Natasha Gilbert, “Inside the hothouses of industry”, provides an insight into the public good research these guys are doing in the form of a public-private partnership, which seems to becoming popular these days. Much of this research is focussing on the African nations. But this is still a tiny proportion of the multi-national research budget. And the lack of research progress in areas that would help developing nations is being held back, in part, by the stranglehold the private sector has on intellectual-property rights to crucial technology. The cost to access this technology places it out of reach of many public research institutions.
In these articles and elsewhere, the regulatory system is also blamed for delays and the high costs of developing a transgenic crop.
Aussie research
A plant’s root system is apparently neglected with regard to our understanding of its role in plant physiology. The article by Virginia Gewin, An underground revolution,
investigates some Australian research to rectify this, which will hopefully lead to higher yielding crops.
CSIRO have been studying the roots of wheat plant and found they come in all sorts of sizes: deep, wide and spready, or fine and tangly. The CSIRO team are now field testing 400 new wheat lines in India and Australia that have fast-growing and deep roots they hope will make them more tolerant of drought.
The Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide has teamed up with Arcadia Biosciences – another of these public-private partnerships – to commercialise a method that tricks roots into taking up nitrogen from the soil more efficiently. ACPFG have more on this on their web site
The solution
There is lots of optimism that feeding 9 billion will be done. The debate happening is how to achieve it. Probably the one consensus is that industrialised agriculture can’t continue as it has and although there is a lot of mention about intensified sustainability I don’t think anyone really knows yet what that means.
Would you like some gene tech with that?
For anyone going to be in Adelaide on 18 August, a lot of this will be discussed in more detail at the forum – Would you like some gene tech with that? The event’s web site has full details and how to register. It is a free event and all are welcome, but registration is essential as numbers are limited
Jason
TechNyou
Feeding the world in 2050
We have plenty of food, so why do 1 billion still go hungry or are malnourished? Food security is a complex problem and will only get more complex because by 2050 we are predicted to have another 3 billion mouths to feed. Some of the ability to feed these people this will require better scientific knowledge.
TechNyou is running a National Science Week public forum on 18 August in Adelaide to probe one aspect of this problem, namely the potential role GM (transgenic) technologies can play. So with exemplary timing Nature has just put published a series of features, editorials and opinions on how to feed a hungry world.
In a nutshell
Technically, it will be a cinch to feed an extra 3 billion people. The question is what costs are we prepared to incur to achieve it?
It is made clear that there are solutions requiring technology and other more elemental ones such as improved agronomic practices and the development of the ecosystems to support them, that will be required to feed all these people. And a number of views suggest the cost needn’t be all that great. Of course, there is the cynical view that politics, big business, corruption….and so on will continue on the same and circumvent any good intentions to find ways of feeding 9 billion people. My cynicism wavers.
The science being done
The articles cover research underway worldwide to find ways of growing more food in the same space.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says we could double the existing crop land — mostly from Latin America and Africa — without stuffing the environment or impinging on our urban lifestyles. But the consensus seems to be on intensification of existing land, but in a sustainable way, though, I find the definition of sustainable a slippery beast. It is a bit like religion, there are many interpretations of the same word, and people can usually find a way to make it work in their favour. See Food: a growing problem
On the topic of the multi-nationals, the article by Natasha Gilbert, “Inside the hothouses of industry”, provides an insight into the public good research these guys are doing in the form of a public-private partnership, which seems to becoming popular these days. Much of this research is focussing on the African nations. But this is still a tiny proportion of the multi-national research budget. And the lack of research progress in areas that would help developing nations is being held back, in part, by the stranglehold the private sector has on intellectual-property rights to crucial technology. The cost to access this technology places it out of reach of many public research institutions.
In these articles and elsewhere, the regulatory system is also blamed for delays and the high costs of developing a transgenic crop.
Aussie research
A plant’s root system is apparently neglected with regard to our understanding of its role in plant physiology. The article by Virginia Gewin, An underground revolution,
investigates some Australian research to rectify this, which will hopefully lead to higher yielding crops.
CSIRO have been studying the roots of wheat plant and found they come in all sorts of sizes: deep, wide and spready, or fine and tangly. The CSIRO team are now field testing 400 new wheat lines in India and Australia that have fast-growing and deep roots they hope will make them more tolerant of drought.
The Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide has teamed up with Arcadia Biosciences – another of these public-private partnerships – to commercialise a method that tricks roots into taking up nitrogen from the soil more efficiently. ACPFG have more on this on their web site
The solution
There is lots of optimism that feeding 9 billion will be done. The debate happening is how to achieve it. Probably the one consensus is that industrialised agriculture can’t continue as it has and although there is a lot of mention about intensified sustainability I don’t think anyone really knows yet what that means.
Would you like some gene tech with that?
For anyone going to be in Adelaide on 18 August, a lot of this will be discussed in more detail at the forum – Would you like some gene tech with that? The event’s web site has full details and how to register. It is a free event and all are welcome, but registration is essential as numbers are limited
Jason
TechNyou
US investigators say DNA tests give bogus results
Phys Org. 25 July 2010
TechNyou
TechNyou tried to find a response from 23andMe, Navigenics and Pathway Genomics, nothing was found on their web site or blogs
US investigators say DNA tests give bogus results
Phys Org. 25 July 2010
TechNyou
TechNyou tried to find a response from 23andMe, Navigenics and Pathway Genomics, nothing was found on their web site or blogs
Who owns a dead women's eggs
Just hours after her life support system was switched off, the woman’s husband asked for it to be turned back on to allow for collection of her eggs. His reason: to use IVF to create a child.
What is the appropriate thing to do here? We have the technology to do this and create a child, so why not? The ethical consensus at the time was to deny the father his wish, mostly, it seems, because of the lack of consent from the dead spouse. This implies that if there had been agreement between the husband and wife before her death to allow egg collection the medical team may have granted his wish.
Yuk factor
I tend to agree with the medical team in this instance, first because there was that lack of consent, but also because of that creeping yuk factor that I have mentioned in previous posts. This is the factor that means intuitively I think it is wrong, but I can’t explain why. I have this position, of course, without having any first hand experience of what the husband above is going through.
There has been some interesting commentary on this case, but the problem I see is that courts have allowed sperm from dead husbands to be collected for insemination. In fact children have been born from dead man’s sperm. Born from a dead man’s sperm, Bruce Springstein – ah, no more yuk factor emerging… In some, if not most cases, this has been without the dead husband’s consent. So what is the difference between eggs and sperm?
See commentary
American Journal of Bioethics blog
An Aussie perspective
There was an Australian (QLD) case a few years ago which went against the woman seeking permission to retrieve a dead fiance’s sperm. The judge ruled there was no precedent for ruling in favour of the woman. In Queensland, it is a criminal offence to “interfere with the body of a dead person without lawful justification” and “lawful justification” requires consent prior to death for “specific use of body tissue”.
Merle Sprigg, an ethicist at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute comments on this case and ultimately argues that from an ethical perspective there should be no cause to refuse a woman the right to retrieve a dead partner’s sperm. She suggested the legal position in this case was based on strict and predictable precedents and rooted in outdated values and ethical standards.
Other related articles here
This case is the exception for the male gametes as there are plenty of cases where the woman has successfully got hold of their partner’s sperm. All of this makes my yuk factor reasoning, and especially from lack of consent reasoning, seem a bit lame, as by all reasonable pondering if all parties (apart from the dead one) are happy and nobody is harmed, society itself is not diminished in any way, then why my inability to capitulate in favour of the living? I am prepared to drop my lack of consent argument, but the the yuk factor lingers. Why, I can’t answer that. It is how it is.
I do however like John Harris’ rationale about why a dead man’s sperm should have fewer ethical complications. This is from the Merle Spriggs article linked above:
John Harris describes concern for the destiny of male gametes as an ‘‘overly precious attitude’’ not ‘‘reflected in custom or practice’’ given that ‘‘men are notorious for leaving their gametes behind in all sorts of places, some of which may well result in the creation of life’’. And, they ‘‘almost always’’ do this without ‘‘counselling, formal consent, and time for reflection, and usually without missing them…’’.
Men, whoda thought.
I guess it is harder for women to leave their gametes behind, consciously or otherwise. So on Harris’ rationale maybe eggs should receive greater ethical/legal scrutiny?
More info
The case for the request for the dead woman’s eggs was reported in the New England Journal Medicine, 15 July 2010, Vol 363 (3)
News article from Fierce Healthcare
More ethics in the Journal of Medical Ethics
Jason
TechNyou
$122 million sunlight-to-fuel effort
Lawrence Berkeley Lab media release: 22 July 2010
Artificial photosynthesis in Australia
Australian National University
University of Melbourne Bio21 Institute
Monash University, Dr Sheshanath Bhosale