Test your understanding of the living world with this simple question. What kind of biomolecule is found in all living organisms? If your answer is “DNA”, you are incorrect.
A revolution is afoot. But it won't be televised. You'll find it at your dinner table, or farmer's market. And the fact is that its now unstoppable.
What prevents successes in mice from becoming human cures and treatments? The reason is largely a simple one, as we showed when we recently analyzed the reputed contributions of mouse experiments to human type 2 diabetes research
According to the media "genome editing" techniques can precisely alter the DNA of living organisms and these will change the landscapes of medicine and agriculture. The safety and effectiveness of these techniques hinges crucially on the claim of precision, yet how plausible is it?
The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. They exist to gain patent rights over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness at the expense of farmers, consumers and the natural world.
The tide is turning against the globalization of GMO-based agriculture and forced feeding with consumers leading the charge from the bottom up demanding informed consent (e.g. labeling, independent science) and organic alternatives.
Major agribusiness corporations, such as Monsanto, desire to fully control the global food system by stating their superiority in food yield. Is this agribusiness claim baseless?
New documents reveal that health commission of the European Union (DG SANCO), which is responsible for protecting public health, is attempting to develop a procedural "escape route" to evade an upcoming EU-wide ban on endocrine disrupting pesticides.
If the purpose of the press is to be a public interest watchdog then the science media is a uniquely unsuccessful institution. This is nowhere truer than in its coverage of the ag-biotech industry.
Peer-reviewed publication, which many hold to be the defining characteristic of science, has become a tool through which one vision, that of corporate science, has come to assert ultimate control.
Professor Pamela Ronald is probably the scientist most widely known for publicly defending genetically engineered (GE or GMO) crops, but several of her papers have recently been retracted. What's going on?
There is no scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, according to a statement released today by an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians.
A groundbreaking report released by Independent Science News, documentign how human genetic science was nurtured from its inception with financial and political support from the tobacco industry, was interrupted by a a Denial of Service attack at the end of last month.
Many of the biggest conservation nonprofits have already agreed to a series of global bargains with international agribusiness. In exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.
Over the last twenty years, human genetic research has convinced the public that genetic factors often underly disease and human behavior. Yet this genomic research project, which is one of the most expensive science programs ever conceived, has almost entirely failed to identify the important genes that geneticists predicted, or to account for the occurrence of human illness.