A shocking experiment shows the level to which people will go just to comply with social norms and pressure—up to and including committing murder.
The post Shocking Experiment Shows People Will Murder Others Just to Conform to Society appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
Researchers at the University of California San Diego and Sapphire Energy have successfully grown genetically modified algae outdoors for the first time. They claim that the GM algae don’t harm native algae populations and, moreover, can fend off deadly bacteria. [1]
Stephen Mayfield, a biologist at UC San Diego and co-author of the study, says:
“Every single organism that we use today to produce the food, feed and fiber that we use is genetically modified. This is true for both plants and animals. We did that through the process of domestication, in which we selected the mutations — genetic modifications — that produced the traits we wanted. That might have been larger ears of corns, or bigger soybean seeds, or even cows that produced milk longer.” [1]
According to Mayfield, in order to do the same with algae:
“we need to domesticate algae, similar to what we did with our crop plants and farm animals. [But] this could take decades and we still might not get what we want.” [1]
The ultimate purpose behind bioengineering algae, he explains, is to
“produce the products we need so that we don’t have to cut down our last rain forests, or take every fish from the ocean.” [1]
The doctored algae is viewed as a sustainable, renewable resource.
Source: AlgencalB
But this supposedly glorious research is occurring outside of adequate regulatory oversight and the EPA’s process of establishing and updating regulations for GE algae to protect human health and the environment (although the EPA did monitor the experiment). [1] [2]
Dana Perls, senior campaigner with Friends of the Earth, says:
“This study confirmed that genetically engineered microalgae grown in open ponds will escape and spread into the environment. Once this genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back.
Not only is it impossible to contain GE algae in open air production, but there are currently no adequate regulations which fully address its risks to our environment, from lab to final product. Without this essential oversight, there should be no environmental release or commercial uses of GE algae and other synthetic biology organisms.” [2]
Microalgae reproduce rapidly, and engineered traits can quickly spread because of the plants’ horizontal gene transfer capabilities. Should those engineered traits fail to remain stable over time, there is a potential for the genes to spread rapidly out of control and change in unpredictable ways.
In the past, microalgae have produced toxic algae blooms, and there is no way of knowing whether GE microalgae are more harmful and difficult to control.
That’s the problem: Nobody knows.
Says Dr. Rachel Smolker, director of Biofuelwatch:
“We are told that GE microalgae will not likely survive in the wild, but there is absolutely no basis for that assumption. In fact, many of the traits that are desirable for fuel and chemical production and industrial cultivation are precisely the traits that would lend a competitive advantage in nature.
Those include traits like ‘improved’ photosynthesis, resistance to predators and pests, hardiness and resilience that make them tolerant of industrial cultivation, or the ability to more effectively access and convert available nutrients.” [2]
The scientists’ experiment, funded by the Department of Energy, occurred over more than 50 days in huge outdoor tubs with water samples culled from five regional lakes. The GE strain of microalgae did spread to other tubs, presumably by wind and birds, but it “did not change the ecology in any way.” [1]
“The first trial ran only 50 days, so there was little variation. We also only checked two genes, as we wanted to be very cautious with what we put outside. We need to repeat this test for a longer period of time, and we need to add additional genes to see how they behave under outdoor growth. We simply need a lot more data before we are ready to say that genetically engineered algae are safe and effective. This is step one of that process.” [1]
He also admits there is risk involved.
“Life is risky, and algae are no different than other organisms. But if we make the right changes, and then carefully measure their properties, we can easily manage the risk and develop the strain we need.” [1]
Jonathan Shurin, an ecologist at UC San Diego and a study co-author, says:
“The concern is we’re going to create a monster. [But] algae have been around for billions of years, and they’ve had long histories of evolution. If there was a super algae that could take over the world, it would have evolved by now.” [1]
Dr. Smolker isn’t convinced it’s worth the risk.
“The tests performed by UCSD scientists were of very limited scope and little assurance that GMO microalgae are safe. Meanwhile, we need to ask ourselves: are these products worth the money and worth the risks to our health and environment?” [2]
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in developing algae biofuels that have yet to be commercially viable, Friends of the Earth points out. Now the focus of GE microalgae research is on producing chemicals for use in cosmetics and as food ingredients.
Despite vast amounts of taxpayer dollars being funneled into Sapphire Energy for biofuel production, the company has been busily making algae-derived surfboards.
Another funding recipient, Solazyme, now known as Terravia, is focused on products like anti-wrinkle face cream.
Sources:
[1] Popular Science
 | Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog. |
An associate professor of preventative medicine at Rush University Medical Center has invented a device designed to help people make better food choices. The gadget fits inside vending machines and makes buyers who purchase unhealthy snacks wait 25 seconds before their selection drops. But people who choose healthier options – like peanuts or popcorn – get their selection immediately. [1]
Every second you wait on your snack makes you want it less. Think of it as a “time tax” along the same lines as a soda tax. Brad Appelhans, the designer of the device, says:
“We were interested in the ability to test whether time delays can nudge people to healthier choices.” [1]
He adds:
“We’ve known for a long time that there’s an association between the delay until you receive a reward and how influential it is to your decision. The longer you have to wait for something, the less desirable it is.” [2]
This is because humans seek instant gratification, which often translates to sugary, fatty junk food. Weight loss takes time, for example; but a package of donuts can be ripped open and eaten immediately. Appelhans explains:
“The health benefits of making a healthy food choice generally aren’t realized for many years, whereas your choice to have a delicious donut is rewarded right away. If we can delay the junk food relative to the healthier option, we’re essentially using that principal of delayed gratification in reverse.” [2]
The device is dubbed “DISC,” or “Delays to Influence Snack Choices.” Inserted into a vending machine, the DISC platform delays unhealthy snacks in their drop from the top half of the machine. A message on the display window informs buyers they’ll have to wait an additional 25 seconds for their junk food. [1]
When a selection falls onto the DISC, a 25-second countdown is triggered on the vending machine’s display screen. At the end of those long 25 seconds, DISC drops its platform and the snack falls into the vending machine’s bay. Healthier snacks completely bypass the platform with no wait.
To qualify as a “healthier” snack, items had to meet at least 5 of the following criteria:
Appelhans tested DISC by placing it into three vending machines around Rush University, which has a patent pending on the device. The experiment lasted 14 months, during which over 32,000 snacks were dispensed. [2]
He experimented with other stuff, too, like lowering the price of healthier snacks or increasing the price of unhealthy ones. Then he sat back and watched as students broke into the machines, kicked them, and swore. [1]
OK, that last part was purely my imagination.
The outcome was quite positive. Appelhans presented a study at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine in San Diego, reporting that many people started picking healthier snacks because of DISC.
Appelhans says the delay alone resulted in a roughly 5% change in the proportion of healthier snacks that were sold – approximately the same increase in sales that he saw when he lowered the price of the healthier snacks by 25 cents or raised the price of unhealthy ones by 25 cents but did not impose a time delay.
Using the 25-cent price change in addition to the delay resulted in greater increases in healthier snack sales than the delay alone, but Appelhans says that the delay has some advantages over the lowered price.
“Unlike the discount, the delays didn’t harm the overall revenues of the machine. Places want people to have more nutrition, but they don’t want to lose revenue. So the time delay might be a nice way to have it both ways.” [1]
The researchers would like to study the effects of time delay on food choices in other contexts as well, such as fast-food joints and online grocers. Appelhans also hopes to find a commercial partner to bring DISC to the market. Appelhans says:
“Vending machines are the biggest source of high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods in the United States, and there’s a huge need for strategies to make them healthier. We think this could have a major impact, but first we need the industry to get on board.” [2]
Sources:
[1] NPR
[2] Health.com
 | Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog. |
