Declaración Latinoamericana por una Ciencia Digna, por Andrés Carrasco

http://frentesocialistapr.blogspot.com/2014/06/declaracion-latinoamericana-por-una.html

EXTRACTOS:

La necesidad de legitimar la tecnología se transforma en una pulsión, anticientífica y dogmática. Más aun, la afirmación de que el problema no está en la técnica sino en su uso, es doblemente preocupante porque además de no ver el pensamiento reduccionista que los preside, oculta la creciente subordinación y fusión de la ciencia con el poder económico revalidando las bases cientificistas productivistas y tecnocéntricas que emanan del neoliberalismo en su versión actual. La legitimación recurre a la simplista idea de que la tecnología por serneutra y universal representa siempre progreso. Y que si algo falla es debido a la intromisión de un impredecible Dr. No que la va usar mal y que cualquier posible daño derivado de ésta será remediado en el futuro por otra “tecnología mejor” o por el ingenuo argumento de la regulación del Estado, aunque sepamos que éste es socio promotor de los intereses que controlan el “desarrollo científico” en nuestros países. Prefieren desconocer que estas tecnologías son productos sociales no inocentes, diseñadas para ser funcionales a cosmovisiones hegemónicas que le son demandadas por el sistema capitalista. Decir que los problemas “no tienen que ver con la tecnología transgénica” y que los que se oponen “están minando las bases de la ciencia” es parte de la predica, “divulgación” y diatriba contra cualquiera que sostenga lo contrario. No hay nada más anticientífico que recortar o ignorar la historia de la evidencia científica, y asignarse a sí mismos la función de ser la pata legitimadora que provee la “ciencia” actual a la apropiación por despojo...

******

El sometimiento científico se agrava cuando el fundamento científico que impulsan las empresas fabricantes y comercializadoras de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) es una ciencia anacrónica y con un valor de verdad cada vez más cuestionable y cuestionado entre y desde amplios sectores de la propia comunidad científica. Esta mirada anacrónica, todavía hegemónica, ha encontrado en el reduccionismo biológico y el absolutismo genocéntrico de los científicos, su principal sostén. 

******

La complejidad es ignorada en la explicación biológica actual, refleja la tendencia a la clasificación, al aislamiento, y a la manipulación de los genes concebidos como unidades ontológicas.  Esto no solo es una teoría biológica general errónea, sino que afecta a la comprensión de la naturaleza y se convierten en un instrumento. Un instrumento alineado con la necesidad, cada vez más imperiosa, de controlar y manipular la naturaleza habilitando específicas aplicaciones en la tecnología que salen de los procesos fisiológicos ontogénicos y filogénicos. En efecto, la falla de la teoría general no es una equivocación, sino que se produce en una relación compleja con los intereses industriales concentrados y hegemónicos que han encontrado en esa falla una oportunidad de negocios para fortalecer el error por necesidad y sometiendo a la propia ciencia.

GMO's and unscientific conclusions

http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article5667

THE SAFETY OF GMO: STUDIES ARE BASED ON NON SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS

Frédéric JACQUEMART, May 2014

The highly publicized publication of Snell et al. [1] has been widely touted as a definitive proof of the safety of Genetically Modified Plants (GM Plants) and the adequacy of toxicological evaluation methods applied to them. Others have strongly criticized the validity of the authors’ conclusions.
Closely following the GMO dossier for many years, Senator Marie-Christine Blandin (Green party) wanted an official point to be made on the findings of this publication in order to inform the public debate. She therefore asked the HCB for a scientific opinion, asking some very specific questions, sufficiently enough to be difficult to circumvent.
The result is of major significance: not only have the main conclusions of the mediatized article been invalidated, but has therefore shown that no known publication to date said to be scientific, purporting to show the safety of GM Plants through long-term or multigenerational studies is conclusive! We knew it, but to see it officially confirmed really changes the face of public debate.

Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up

Read PDF | Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate  ESSAY OF THE WEEK Five New Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria. But how long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actualscientific evidence that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises, it's putting public health at risk? Jim Goodman, farmer, activist and member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board, recently wrote about Monsanto's deceptive use of the expression "sound science." But, 'sound science' has no scientific definition. It does not mean peer reviewed, or well documented research. 'Sound science' is only a term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view, policy statement or a technology. 'Sound science' is little more than the opinions of so-called "experts" representing corporate interests. Simply put, 'sound science' always supports the position of industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment and public health. Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto's "sound science" story. Reports of everything from Monsanto's Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years, contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.  Read the essay

Flaws in Artificial Genetic Modification

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1037

Publication date: January 27, 2014 Posting date: January 27, 2014

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE Dear Friends and Colleagues  Review Highlights the Flaws in Artificial Genetic Modification  It has been about 20 years since genetically modified (GM) organisms were introduced into the world on a commercial basis. The original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the “central dogma” of molecular biology which assumed that DNA carried all the instructions for making an organism, transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function, in linear causal chains. This  dogma has been debunked by the “new genetics” of the “fluid genome” (where the organism conducts its own natural genetic modification) which emerged in the mid-1970s. This situation is discussed in a review article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a renowned genetic scientist from the Institute of Science in Society, London. The review was published in the journal Entropy and clearly lays out the differences between natural and artificial genetic modification: “natural genetic modification is quite precise and predictable, is negotiated by the organism as a whole, occurs at the right time and place without damaging the genome….(and) is appropriate to the organism as a whole in its environmental context (whereas) artificial genetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, unpredictable, and uncontrollable….and interferes with the natural process.”   The article, entitled “The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification”, reviews empirical evidence on how artificial genetic modification disrupts the natural process. Dr. Ho covers, inter alia, transgene instability, horizontal gene transfer, and the hazards of using the CaMV 35S promoter and the agrobacterium vector in genetic engineering.   The full article can be downloaded from:https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4748/pdf‎ and the abstract is reproduced below. With best wishes  Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net To unsubscribe, please reply to news@biosafety-info.net Review: The New Genetics and Natural versus Artificial Genetic Modification Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, London. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4748/pdf‎ Abstract The original rationale and impetus for artificial genetic modification was the “central dogma” of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism, which are transmitted via RNA to protein to biological function in linear causal chains. This is contrary to the reality of the “fluid genome” that has emerged since the mid-1970s. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA and DNA responding to and participating in “downstream” biological functions. Artificial genetic modification, in contrast, is crude, imprecise, and interferes with the natural process. It drives natural systems towards maximum biosemiotic entropy as the perturbations are propagated and amplified through the complex cascades of interactions between subsystems that are essential for health and longevity.

Sources and Mechanisms of Health Risks from Genetically Modified Crops and Food

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1022

November 13, 2013

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE  Dear Friends and Colleagues  We are pleased to highlight the attached TWN Biosafety Briefing which identifies the sources of health risks that can potentially arise from GM foods as well as presents the increasing body of evidence that shows the disruptive effect of the GM transformation process and clear signs of toxicity in well-controlled animal feeding studies even of a short-term nature.  This paper was presented at the Scientific Conference 2012 jointly organized by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Third World Network and Tara Foundation, 'Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety: GMO Risk Assessment, Independent Biosafety Research and Holistic Analysis', held on 28-29 September 2012 in Hyderabad, India, and was first published in the Conference Proceedings.  With best wishes, Third World Network 131 Jalan Macalister 10400 Penang  Malaysia Email: twnet@po.jaring.my Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/ To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

Printer friendly version

Download document(s): » TWN Biosafety Briefing_health risk_MA.pdf (English - pdf - 428 Kb)

Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the “Missing Heritability”

September 19, 2013 Commentaries, Health No Comments

By Evan Charney, Duke Institute for Brain Science, Duke University

One of the hopes and promises of the Human Genome Sequencing Project was that it would revolutionize the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of most human disorders. It would do this by uncovering the supposed “genetic bases” of human behavior. With a few exceptions, however, the search for common gene variants -“polymorphisms” – associated with common diseases has borne little fruit. And when such associations have been found the polymorphisms seem to have little predictive value and do little to advance our understanding of the causes of disease. In a 2012 study, for example, researchers found that incorporating genetic information did not improve doctors’ ability to predict disease risk for breast cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis [1].

THE SEARCH IS REAL, AT LEAST!

And to date, not a single polymorphism has been reliably associated with any psychiatric disorders nor any aspect of human behavior within the “normal” range (e.g., differences in “intelligence”).

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/still-chasing-ghosts-a-new-genetic-methodology-will-not-find-the-missing-heritability/

Genetic engineering – The state of the science, By Stuart Newman

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=464

"When scientists first learned in the late 1970s how to sequence DNA and transfer it from one kind of organism to another, improving foods and other crop plants by introducing foreign genes was among the first applications proposed. Given contemporaneous findings in molecular genetics, such as the recognition that a mutation in a single gene could promote a cell's transformation to cancerous state,1 it was unsurprising that concerns were raised about the capability of the transgenic methods to dramatically change the biochemistry or ecological stability of plants. Some critics suggested that the quality and safety of fruits and vegetables could be impaired, making them allergenic or toxic to humans and nonhumans who consume them, or that "superweeds" might be created which could disrupt wild or farmed ecosystems."