The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[brazuca]

Uhm... Very compelling Bob. I though you could talk about how native american did with corn. Well considering you are very american and U.S is the biggest producer of corn in the world. Still I think you should go back to this again, because there is still topics inside this subject that need to be talked.

 

[Number-14]

Mmmmm carrot .. *omnomnomnomnomnomnom*

Interesting information there, thanks for sharing

 

[ezeroast]

the crossing of animal dna into plants is something you didn't go into. To tell you the truth not overly fussed about it. But putting fish dna into tomatoes so they can withstand colder temperatures and can be stored longer I cant say I love.

 

[RC-1290'Dreadnought']

Sure, we don't have to panic when we hear the words Genetic Engineering, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful either. It doesn't always work out well. For example, there is a dog breed where the skull is too small for the brain and dogs from another breed can't even be born without c-section.

 

[Crazy_Bird]

Currently there is a distinct lack of laws and regulations which makes the whole field more questionable than it really is. I got the feeling this is beyond politicians and they tend to ponder to the irrational fear of their voting crows.

The important point is that there is no such thing as a bad technology which is inherently evil but the question is always how people put these techniques to use. Currently there is very vocal group promoting Genetic Engineering as the ultimate evil for religious reasons or yet unproven fears which is a harmful environment for innovation in general.

So do not condemn genetic modified food yet and do not embrace it thoughtlessly. Be caution and yet reasonable. That's always a good attitude in life.

 

[Melkor-III]

Initially, I must note that most things concerning the subject has already been said, but that has never stopped anyone.

I agree with Bob on one point, the dangers of GMO has been greatly exagurated when it comes to practical concerns. Yes, mankind has been modifying nature since before the beginning of recorded history and yes, it is the foundation of agriculture as we know it.

However, in the quest of making a point about the absurdity of the debate, Bob has failed to make justice to the name of his video segment. He does not convey a 'Big Picture', but reduces the concept of generic engineering to controlled breeding and the "activation and deactivation of protein producing DNA segments". This is just a part of the field and definitely not the area of interest when it comes to the GMO debate.

The real concern is the transplantation of a gene from one completely different organism to another, perhaps best exemplified by the transference of genes from fish to plant life. This form of genetic engineering is quite different from the discussed practice, which simply entails promoting certain genes and mutations. By introducing a new gene into a plant family, you are effectively making a change that would not be possible by conventional natural or controlled selection, as fish and tomatoes rarely if ever interbreed (emphasis on ?ever? ). The aforementioned introduction of the gene is not itself a problem or a moral concern, the problem rests in the fact that the new gene now becomes transferable not only within the population but also the entire plant family. The actual occurrences are few, but there has been instances where poison-resistant DNA has been injected into crops and later transferred to close weed relatives which now retain properties they would not otherwise have. The consequence: we now have weeds we cannot kill by conventional herbicide.

A grave concern? Probably not, but to claim that the mere suggestion of unforeseen consequences equals the behavior of 'dopy, paranoid, flat earth extremists (paraphrase)' is not only one-sided and counterproductive, it is a strictly emotional way of though. Science is observation and empirical reasoning. We observe a problem and then deduce the impact. In this case, the later part 'might' indeed conclude that the dangers of GMO can be countered by further study and control over the environment into which the genes are transplanted. Bob, however, has decided that observing the problem as real would give power to the opposition and has thus decided to exclude the parts of the debate he disagrees with by using a strict and ultimately false definition of what genetic engineering is. I understand that he is making a point, but by lying as much as some media spokesmen he only reveals his bias or ? alternatively ? his ignorance.

 

[Plazmatic]

Thank you very much Bob for this. Speaking as someone who is currently studying this field, it's great to see someone actually dispelling people's fears. Now, where did I put the DNA to make those living bagpipes?

Also fun field in this vein, synthetic biology, or the making of biological toys, like bacteria which can solve sudoku.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/18/e-coli-bacteria-solve-sud_n_785494.html

hey can you answer to this guy?

As a chef, I get a lot of information about GMO's.

And frankly yes, just because its altered does not mean is dangerous. The only cause for concern is that when you alter food slightly over generations the body adapts to it. And hybridizing and husbandry combine the genes of the same species.

GMO's can have very harmful side effects, but it is by no means assured. Simple scientific testing can determine its saftety.

The REAL problem is that this testing is not done, and the FDA does not even require biotech firms to tell them if their food is genetically modified.

Im pretty sure he's spouting bullshit, and he has little to no actual knowlege of the field, but just wanted to make sure.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me, or the other guy. Anyways, I don't know that much in regards to FDA regulations dealing with genetically modified food, but I have never ever heard of genetically modified food adapting to the body over generations causing problems.

For example, many strains of corn have been genetically engineered to be resistant to certain chemicals. As part of ensuring that this gene does not transfer to other plants, these strains of corn cannot produce offspring, they are sterile. The only way for genes to transfer from one species to another in plants (I do mean plants, and they can do this and do do it quite regularly) is for pollen from one to fertilize the ovum of another. These strains do not pollinate, so each year, the farmers must buy a new batch of seeds from whichever company makes the corn strains. Because the plants can't reproduce, they can't evolve, therefore there is no adapting.

I have heard of organic plants evolving new toxins which may be poisonous to humans in a few generations, but I have yet to seen any hard literature in this area, so I'm hesitant to proclaim this as fact yet.

And so you know, my qualifications are a BS in Molecular Biology and I'm currently pursuing a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics.

Thanks, that clears some things up, sarkis was obviously bullshitting. I also didn't know that genetically modified corn could not reproduce, that kind of fucks over the farmer though.

 

[mtarzaim]

Long time viewer, first time poster.

This video is so wrong about a subject so important, I couldn't stay quiet about it.
First, I'm a science lover myself.
I firmly believe Science is th only good path for Mankind's (and any earthian lifeforms) future.
But even I know what is wrong when I see it.
And I believe any person who has done properly his/her High School Biology program could end up at the same conclusions.


On Food for humans
As stated previously, GMO can trigger allergia, old and NEW.
Because what's inside cannot possibly be tested against every genetic profile of the human pool.
Monsanto doesn't give a shit about it, because they're willing to pay a few thousands bucks to law suits, while gaining billions on the global market.
On the side note, if you think Monsanto is testing its new food on human with every medecine, polluant and matter we can absorb during a lifetime, you're clearly dellusionnal.
At best, it is a "are you feeling fine? Yes/No" every month or so. They won't slice up thousands of people around the world for decades just to be sure there's nothing wrong in them because of their stuff.
How long did it take for Tobacco industry to recognize publicly the dangers of smoking, being both a drug AND a poison?
History is repeating itself here...


On starvation
So GMO has ended food starvation worldwide?
First news...
There's still people dying in several parts of the world, and even in the developped countries, not everyone eats to his/her content.
Prices are still skyrocketting. There's still shortage of food due to disease and bad weather. Starve riots pop up every now and then.
We can't feed the whole planet with organic food? I'm not quite sure about that.
What I'm sure of, is certain countries (ie US) are eating far more than they should, then spends billions in diet programs and shady medecine.
First, we should be eating less (one small piece of meat per day, more seasoned veggies, smaller portions).
Compare a BigMac menu in Europe with the "same" one in USA. You won't believe your eyes.
Give priorities to local production for local selling. Less transport fees and no social dumping.
Teach how to grow crops efficiently without using chemicals (which most of third world producers don't know shit about, since they're mostly illettrate).
Then we'll see if we cannot feed everyone.
But of course, it will be less profitable to big compagnies and money-obsessed traders.


On Testing
You know how GMO should be tested ?
Easy.
Take a planet similar to Earth, plant your GMO, wait one THOUSAND years, and then test EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM of said planet to see how they have copped with your new introduced chimera.
Oh wait. We didn't have any other planet, right?
Neither we have 1000 years to waste waiting?
Nor the capabilities to study a whole 40 000 km round ecosystem?
So am I saying we're screwing the ONLY VIABLE PLANET we have with something we absolutely don't control, just for the sake of someone's banking account?
Here's a hint : yes.


On GE and "natural"
Do you know what happens when you put a new specie in an unknown environment?
Here an example : put a fluffly and cute pal, let's say a bunny, in a wide remotely location, let's say Australia.
Then ask Yatzhee about it.
Another one : take an cute and harmless turlte, the Florida one, and put it in the european rivers.
Guess the result.
Another one : pick a green and natural veggie, a pretty tropical seaweed for aquarium, and let it spread in, let's say Mediterrannee.
Long story short : lots of money wasted to clean the mess, extinction of natural species (some were fished for food by locals) and without being sure it will be successful, even in the long term.
So yeah, introducting something natural in a system which wasn't ready for it is a REALLY BAD IDEA.
Imagine then, when it's about something as chimeric as a GMO...


On Sterility and Natural spreading
Just because Monsanto's stuff is sterile doesn't mean every damn seed will be.
Do you think they have the capabilities (even less the will) to verify each crop to be sure it's conform to their standards (as fucked up they can be)?
Of course not, because they brush away a very known fact: spontaneous mutation.
One crop could retain all the genetics of its peers, except the sterility gene.
So what happens next?
Of course, it will contaminate the natural environment, spreading, breading, and mutating on its own, away from human attention.
And when it will be noticed, it will be already too firmly implanted in every ecosystem to get rid of it.
Of course, the consequencies on natural species is unknown. But since we're speaking about the base of the eating chain, the end results (i.e us)

cannot be little.
And you know the fun part? This is the best case scenario.
In the worst, the mutated crop carries its terminator gene, but within several late generations.
Not only it will contaminate and terminate natural viable species, but it will destroy ultimately every eating material for every evolued organism, decades after its introduction.
Fun, isn't it?


On Natural adaptation
Seriously.
What happens when yo use too much of anti-biotics?
Yes, anti-biotic resistant bacterias begin to appear.
What will happen if naturally bug-immune plants are widely spread?
Obvious. bug-immune plant-immune bugs will appear too.
And then, we're screwed.
Because there no way in hell we will have a way to stop them, not only to eat our sweet GMO, but every other damn vegetables.
It's as easy as that: stronger stuff makes stronger opposite stuff (unless we eradicate it before it gets stronger, like small pox).
On the planet scale, where any spore can cross oceans and mountains in a few hours, it's impossible.
And I'm not talking about other harmless insects, like bees, who will get genocided in the process by those sweet GMO.
BTW, do you like your honey with or without killerbug?
Because soon, you might not have this choice anymore.


On everything else
Others posters have already stated the other wrong points in this video, and the overall ignorance about this subject some escapists seem to hold.
To add a little to the mix: Man-engineered viruses are held in strongly (I hope so) secured facilities, which get blown at the first sign of leaks.
Why aren't GMO under the same standards? Isn't their impact scale on the same level?
And just because they don't immedialty affect human body, they should be spread in the Nature, interacting in Who-knows-how ways with local organisms?


Bottom of line.
GMO are great... for TERRAFORMING MARS.
On Earth, it's just a kid playing with a heavy machinegun in an atomic missile launcher.
Sooner or later, a bullet will hit the bad spot.

 

[Deepzound]

While I agree with the premise that fear of GMO food is overblown, this video was so full of poor logic and half truths that it does a disservice to the argument. Selective breeding and modern genetic manipulation may both be "genetic engineering" but that does make them the same. Just as removing a sliver with a knife and heart transplants are both surgery, I am sure that you would only let your mom do the former.

There are valid concerns that need to be taken into account when splicing genes to produce better food. The scale of change is much larger and faster that could ever have been accomplished by dutch farmers using selective breeding. Inserting entirely new genetic material into existing genes cannot be compared to techniques that select existing genetic material. The results need to be thoroughly tested for safety to the consumer and the environment. To pretend that raising concerns is the venue of only the ignorant is offensive and only shows bob's ignorance.

The truly sad thing is the number of posters who are thanking bob for being enlightened. This is almost no better than the other idiots who scream against GMO foods.

I couldn't have said it better myself. That last part in particular.

It seems people today are too lazy to look up facts themselves, and instantly trust their most preferred sources regardless what they spout. People who go "Oh thank you Bob, now I feel 10 x smarter and better, and know all there is to know about this! Them damn organic food supporters are just dumb and do not understand marvelous science!!" are simply hilarious.

How about in stead of blindly trusting this one persons "facts", you also check up and read on the subject matter at hand yourself? Wikipedia has some great pages on it, and I guarantee you that you will walk away from those pages a hell of a lot more enlightened then you will from any segment by Bob.

Or perhaps most of Bob's fans prefer to stay in the cartoon world, where science can only bring about a new and better tomorrow.

Now I'm not saying that Bob's entire video was fallacious, but it grossly oversimplified and issue that is much more complex than what this video would leave you thinking.

EDIT:

This could stand to be reposted on every single page of this discussion.

Bob is absolutely full of shit.

He is speaking with the air of authority on something he knows less than nothing about. That is, he has so much misinformation that he would actually be better off being completely ignorant.

Let's review the errors.

Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves using viruses (or other small carriers, such as needles) to modify a species using genetic material from a completely different species. In other words, two species that could NEVER breed in the wild can have materials combined. Viruses can move genetic material around in the wild "naturally," but, in multicellular organisms, this is an incredibly rare event that has only been theorized to have occured. In other words, this is NOT a natural event. In fact, you take genetic traits from plants and fungi and add them to animals. The organisms don't even have to be in the same kingdom.

Bob implied that this was only turning on and off existing traits.

In this, Bob is a liar.*

In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.

And oh, let's not hear the "it all exists in nature" canard from some of the posters. Cyanide is naturally occuring -- I invite you to try some. The fact of the matter is, a protein that is excellent in corn won't necessarily be healthy in a trout. Biological systems are exceptionally complex -- they are likely the most complex thing known to man -- and extensive testing would be needed to be certain the chimeric animal is healthy and safe to eat -- testing that Monsanto and the like are dedicated to avoiding.

By the way, the relevant term here is chimera, NOT a hybrid Bob -- and if you don't know what a chimera is, you shouldn't even be in this discussion. Seriously, this is like discussing the Middle East without knowing what Jew, Arab, oil, and the U.S. mean.

But back to that earlier point, it is not the mere existence of a biological agent that makes it "natural," but its relationship with the organism. I can assure you that an octopus contains plenty of chemicals that, if placed in the human bloodstream, would sicken it, and vice-versa. Saying that something is "natural" because it's found in nature is like claiming it's okay to stab you in the head with an icicle. Water is natural, after all, and you're full of it already, right?

It gets worse. The problem with genetic engineering -- which Bob doesn't even understand -- is that it is being used without proper controls and with complete disregard to environmental laws and human saftey. Monsanto, the biggest and most well-known perpetrator, made its fortune by doing the following:

a) Invent a highly toxic weed killer.
b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.
d) Fail to test the food on animals -- or test the food badly, obscuring animal harm such as increased rate of cancer. (Yep, they'll lie about their own results.)
e) Sell the seed to farmers where the plants will interbreed with wild species, contaminating them.

And the real doozy:

f) If some of Monsanto's seeds get onto your property and you've refused to buy their seed, they will claim your ENTIRE FARM as their own and take the plants you developed via decades of actual cross-breeding, patent the plants, and steal your livelhood.

I'm not kidding. They did this to farmers in Canada and are pulling the same crap in India.

Oh, by the way: if you're in the third world, they'll refuse to let you save your seeds -- you know, what farmers have done for over 20 thousand years. That way you have to buy from them ever year. And they jack the price up. Not that you needed to buy their seed before they started polluting your crops with their seeds.

Needless to say, contamination of some of the oldest crops of mankind could lead to some pretty serious devastation. Monsanto and similar companies are using the entire planet as a laboratory and have no experimental controls. (And again, if you don't know what a scientific control is, you have no business saying anything about genetic engineering. Just to be sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about this: you should. You should look up your terms first, however -- and not spew a bunch of poisonous lies on a popular media site while ridiculing hundreds of millions of people fighting to preserve their lives and jobs.)

It is not genetic engineering to improve crops. It's genetic engineering to exploit the trademark system, a legal system that the framers of the Constitution never expected to be employed as we do today. It is supposed to be illegal to patent living things; Monsanto's bribes changed that.

And, oh, Bob -- that carrot? The one you thought you were so clever about? Yeah, we know it was genetically engineered due to activists telling us. It wasn't mentioned in the supermarket. In fact, Monsanto and its allies work hard to obscure all genetic engineering information and hope to make its disclosure illegal. This is despite the fact that some of their additions can trigger allergic reactions in humans.

So, if you're allergic to peanuts, imagine it being illegal to label something as containing peanut products. That's you're future.

Seriously, Bob, that carrot gag did nothing to ridicule your target and simply made you look like an ass.

Hell, even his non-science discussion is a doughy pantload. Frankenstein's lack of scientific credentials in the novel was basically irrelevant since accredidation didn't mean much in the 19th century -- but, zounds, it was a big deal in the 20th, hence the change to the movie.

You'd think he'd know that, being a movie critic.



*The vehemence of this reply is due to the fact that Bob was contemptuous of people who have a valid, important concern with the state of the FDA. In short, Bob was belittling people who are working their asses off to save lives and livelihoods in the face of ridiculously irresponsible and, frankly, antiscientific mismanagement. And he did so using out-and-out lies, some of which parallel the lies used by the industries breaking the laws and bribing congress as we speak. I call him a liar because of his confidence; he made blanket, untrue declarations with the intent to persuade.

 

[Reeves88]

the only thing i dislike about genetically engineered food is when they start doing things like puting fish genes into strawberrys to make them grow all year round, when u taste the difference between home grown and store bought strawberrys you will see what i mean store bought are bland and tastless almost while homegrown granted havent got a long shelf life but are absoultly mouthwatering tasty

 

[Jeffro Tull]

You may think Star Trek, I think Dune.
You may think "for the good of mankind", I think "for the good of the monopolist".

It's not really a scientific problem, it's an economical and social one.
While a farming dynasty can, say, breed the perfect sheep for their benefit, Monsanto and others genetically engineer crop and vegetables to dominate the market.
They even go so far as to "unsex" plants so that they don't produce new seeds which have to be bought for a hefty price every damned year again and sustainability and independence go overboard.

I only fear the day when Monsanto's Sardaukar-crops have eliminated all and every "organic" AKA traditional alternative and some African farmers have to go Fremen on His Imperial Highness' corporate ass.

Yeah there is aspect, but there is also other glaring problems to the current model. For instance, you could factor in the gallons of fuel a day we use to maintain this crop, constantly spraying pesticides on them, driving the yield to a factory across the country, that factory burning massive amounts of energy to package and sort the product, and then they are driven to select warehouses which in turn distribute several trucks in order to deliver it to you local grocer and restaurants. This is a lot of energy we are talking about here.

If you also factor the fertilization of the land, you have another issue. Before the current model of food growth was in place we used to let the remaining plant matter from the crop decompose on the land which in turn fertilized the soil for the next year. Now we are too scared of superbugs and bacteria that we simply clear off the land and rely on chemical fertilizers. This is problematic in itself. This is simply because the soil is not receiving the proper amount of minerals and nutrients to sustain growth.

To sum it up. GMF's ... OK to a certain extent, but what about everything else surrounding this issue. If these nuts spent half the time focusing on the real issues we would seriously rethink this model. We are not the first generation to use faulty methods that damage the environment in which we live, but the price is exponentially higher once you factor in that we operate on a global scale. Call it tree hugging propaganda, I call it survival.

 

[Masterthief]

The big problem that I have heard of with GM foods is that the different 'brands' have been patented. By huge American food companies. And then if cross polination occurs, you have to pay them for it. If you can't, you get sued until you have to sell them your farmland. They get more land, more cross polination, more sueing etc. etc. rinse and repeat.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is these major business' domination of the American food market, and their power within the American political system (which, for most of you, is probably a lot, and I do mean a LOT, more than you think) and through that their power over the world food market in general.

 

[rddj623]

A most excellent point. People need to really figure out what they are rallying against before they do so. There is some validity to the fact that we are still unsure what messing with some things will do, either in the short term or the long term but if it's gotten to market chances are it's safe enough not to worry about.

Also ironically, as you mention in your Splice review, limiting mainstream science is what puts scientists on the fringe and outside jurisdiction to begin with.

 

[Symbio Joe]

This is not the "The Big Picture" just look through the comments. This topic is way too big to be covered in a view minutes. Bob you should really reconsider the name of this show or try harder to deliver a big picture.

 

[Rblade]

is nobody finding it ironic that we are displaying all this:

evil cooperations are poisoning us! and This technology is evil!

stuff while that is exactly the stuff that is being held towards the game industry?

I mean ofcourse it sounds a bit off and this kind of research takes big company kind of money so it will always be big companies involved in this kind of field.

but lets keep a level head and look at the incredible amount of good it could do for the world food problems. A combination of proper breedcrossing and genetic engineering could ensure good harvests in poor and uneducated countries.

So don't fear the technology, but fight those that abuse it. The people in labs working their butt of to better the world deserve that much

 

[Geek_DR]

Hello escapist and Movie Bob,

Long time watcher/reader, first time commenter.

While I do find the fear tactics about GMOs annoying and eat them all the time without concern for myself, I think you addressed the argument very poorly. There are actual concerns about GMOs and you didn't address any of them, sticking to the "science = good" argument.

For example, health concerns aside, GMOs do damage the diversity of the ecosystem and the plant species in particular. This means that all of the crops can be wiped out by a single disease. (see Irish potato famine.) Secondly as a crop, GMOs mean that a corporation can claim ownership of a species of food (like trademarking carrots).

Wait, this is the potato famine of 1840's right? Where the irish grew dependent on a specific crop and once it was nearly wiped out alot of people starved? Doesn't that have less to do with GMO and more to do with NOT depending on one specific crop and having more diversity?

As for the trade marketing of foods....we have trade marks on nearly every noun and that has more to do with economics that GMO. They are similar but completely different. Heck we as people pay for everything that would keep us alive except air.

Yes the Irish grew dependent due to selective breeding, a process that was equated to genetic engineering in the video. GMO's have this effect but many times over as there is a complete lack of diversity in the crop. They may be resistant, but if something gets them, every farmer's crop fails.

In relation to the trademarking of food, it means companies such as Monsanto, (Thanks fellow commenters, I couldn't remember the name.) can force a monopoly on farmers as they effectively have the sole ownership of the crop. Other people have said it in this thread, but there are all sorts of sketchy business practices around the trademarking of crops.

 

[geierkreisen]

And your point is that some corporations will do anything to increase their bottom line? New methods and technology often have a period where only a few have control of it. Unfortunately this can lead to blinding greed. Corruption is a whole other monster I don't even want to get into. I don't know about the rest of the world but, what I am finding says that GE products are still regulated by the FDA, USDA, and EPA. Just as the corporations push for less regulations there are others pushing for more.

Genetic Engineering is one of a number of methods required to feed the growing population and doing it efficiently. I would recommend reading up on Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution and credited with saving the lives of an estimated billion people from starvation and malnutrition.

I am doing my reading on Norman Borlaug right now, as a courtesy would you care to invest about an hour to watch the documentary I quoted? Maybe we can enlighten each other on the topics of the necessity of genetic engineering (which I am at the moment denying) and the deficit of governmental control on genetic engineering (which I sadly can't deny at all).

 

[geierkreisen]

is nobody finding it ironic that we are displaying all this:

evil cooperations are poisoning us! and This technology is evil!

stuff while that is exactly the stuff that is being held towards the game industry?

I mean ofcourse it sounds a bit off and this kind of research takes big company kind of money so it will always be big companies involved in this kind of field.

but lets keep a level head and look at the incredible amount of good it could do for the world food problems. A combination of proper breedcrossing and genetic engineering could ensure good harvests in poor and uneducated countries.

So don't fear the technology, but fight those that abuse it. The people in labs working their butt of to better the world deserve that much

I am a progressive democrat with a strong ethical and academic background and as such I am growing weary of sentences like "there will always be big companies involved in this kind of field". And I don't fear technology or any other bogeyman. Sadly human progress is put synonymous with technological progress (the only reason I brought up Dune, because in that book it isn't). Corporate feudalism does away with humane decisionmaking, just as extreme bureaucracy does and the Third Reich did away with it. Monsanto may put food in your belly, but it enslaves you and your people. Pessimists may say that this is the way of the world, but I feel the urge to pick up my pen in protest as thousands before me took up their crossbows, pitchforks, donations, micro-loans, and wikileaks. Some may take up their microscopes and petridishes to do the same, sadly most seem to see their tools merely as a means to make money and to put food on their tables, not to better the world.