- Email: [email protected]
Is that GM in my soup?
OPINION
State of disunion US president Barack Obama’s final state address was a rallying call for a more united, rational nation, says Andrew Rosenberg PRESIDENT Barack Obama last week sought to inspire the US political system to do better. Rather than the usual list of new initiatives, he used his final State of the Union address to set out some of the big-picture problems US democracy faces, and made sure to include the vital role of science in tackling them. One of those challenges is polarisation on key issues such as climate change, so much so that people in the US seem unable even to agree on basic evidence and facts. “Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there,” Obama said. “We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space programme almost overnight, and 12 years later, we were walking on the moon.”
His vision – of a thriving economy, innovation in fields like energy and medicine, and a democratic process that works for everyone, not just the powerful – requires the importance of scientific knowledge to be recognised across society. Why does this unity matter so much? “Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us,” Obama said. He highlighted the enormous tension created by increasing inequality, clearly recognising that the rate of change in society is accelerating, leaving many on the sidelines. He pointed to the importance of affordable, highquality education and the danger of marginalising communities. “Most of all,” he said, “democracy breaks down when
Is that GM in my soup? Jeff Hecht raises his spoon to Campbell’s call for openness on genetically engineered food THE battle over labelling genetically modified food in the US is getting reheated. Industry giant Campbell’s has urged the US federal government to reverse its opposition to mandatory labels on products with GM ingredients, which many of its soups contain. It becomes the first major food maker to break from 26 | NewScientist | 23 January 2016
behind its stand. It doesn’t expect customers to spend a lot of time fussing about nutritional purity in the way that those shopping at an organic-heavy chain would. Yet it nonetheless deserves credit for serving it up straight. Such honesty is refreshing and essential. It’s distressing to hear big biotech and agribusiness saying “trust us, there’s nothing to worry about”, at the same time as they try to ban GM labelling. We have heard that before, from
opposition to enforced labelling. Best known for its canned soups, immortalised by artist Andy Warhol, Campbell’s products are typically more comfort food than health food – sometimes heavy on the salt and sugar, but with more “By the 1970s chemistry was a dirty word and nutritional credibility than consumers didn’t trust Twinkies or French fries. cryptic ingredients” That’s probably one factor
companies peddling pesticides, herbicides and CFCs – and it didn’t turn out well. We didn’t understand enough about ecology and food chains to fully anticipate the impact of the wide use of pesticides. And CFCs were a great improvement over the toxic gases used for refrigeration in the 1920s; nobody thought CFCs might destroy the ozone layer. Science paid a price for this. By the 1970s, environmental fiascos left the public wary. Chemistry was a dirty word, and consumers didn’t trust cryptic ingredients. We can’t afford to repeat those mistakes. Advocates of GM foods should explain their benefits, and
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Andrew Rosenberg is director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts
companies using and selling them must be honest about their use if they want to earn and deserve trust. The best way to convince consumers of the benefits is to let them see for themselves. That will also put pressure on advocates to deliver the promised gains. Anyone remember 1994’s ironically tasteless Flavr Savr GM tomato? If genetic engineering can create food with good nutrition and taste at reasonable cost and modest environmental impact, I will look for the label and consider it a selling point. n Jeff Hecht is a New Scientist consultant based in Massachusetts
One minute interview
From Ethopia to the stars We will see an Ethiopian astronaut in my lifetime, says Solomon Belay Tessema, the man behind the country’s space programme So far an observatory has been opened on Mount Entoto, near Addis Ababa. What will that be used for? The main aim of the two telescopes at the Entoto Observatory is to study the properties of variable and binary stars, the Milky Way and other galaxies. Another purpose of this observatory is to provide research and training in astronomy, space sciences, engineering and technology. Understanding astronomy will increase the scientific knowledge of our society. The observatory is also the headquarters for the Ethiopian space programme.
Profile Astrophysicist Solomon Belay Tessema is director of the Entoto Observatory and Research Center near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He lobbied the Ethiopian government to establish its own space programme, which launched in August 2015
Why does Ethiopia need a space programme? A space programme is not a luxury, but a key to securing food, increasing the productivity of agriculture and developing scientific thinking. Space technology is important for many things: satellites, for instance, are used for environmental and water management, and soil assessment. We use them for disaster planning, to gather meteorological data and to improve communications. So a space programme is a key instrument for sustainable development. Isn’t it an unnecessary extravagance, given that Ethiopia is not a wealthy country? This comment is completely at odds with the realities of the 21st century. There are also people living below the poverty line in many developed countries. I believe that the only means of reducing poverty is to transform our agricultural economy though science and technology. China started a space programme around 1952, and India started in 1954. Were they an extravagance?
Isn’t light pollution a problem, given that the observatory is close to a big city? Addis Ababa is growing and light pollution might become a problem within the next 10 years. Considering this, we are conducting site tests for a large optical and radio telescope on the mountains around Lalibela in the north of the country. It is expected to be one of the largest telescopes in the world, but a decision won’t be made until after we have results from tests at the site. The world already has a number of large telescopes. Does it need another one? The purpose of an astronomical observatory isn’t only to observe the sky, but to build capacity in research and training, encourage development of the space industry and establish strong international collaboration. Africa cannot always rely on the technology and human capital of developed countries; it is time for us to build our own. The world needs strong astronomical infrastructure in Africa. What are Ethiopia’s longer-term aspirations for space exploration? The long-term aspiration of Ethiopia is to be one of the leading countries in space exploration and industry in Africa. I assure you that we will see an Ethiopian astronaut in my lifetime. Interview by Linda Geddes
23 January 2016 | NewScientist | 27
Alemiye mamo
the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter.” He pushed us to engage at all levels of society: “What I’m asking for is hard. It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. ” Given stubborn resistance from Obama’s opponents on climate and energy, there was good news in the theme of reconciliation in the Republican party’s response by Nikki Haley. We can only hope the tenor of both addresses will carry forward as this year’s presidential race develops. As a scientist, I know how important it is that we reject cynicism, and engage in public life. That means sharing expertise with groups who have lacked access to it. It means talking about our expertise with policymakers and defending peers when they are attacked by powerful interests. Everyone benefits when science plays a role in policy – in protecting our health, defending our climate and building a stronger, fairer economy. n
State of disunion US president Barack Obama’s final state address was a rallying call for a more united, rational nation, says Andrew Rosenberg PRESIDENT Barack Obama last week sought to inspire the US political system to do better. Rather than the usual list of new initiatives, he used his final State of the Union address to set out some of the big-picture problems US democracy faces, and made sure to include the vital role of science in tackling them. One of those challenges is polarisation on key issues such as climate change, so much so that people in the US seem unable even to agree on basic evidence and facts. “Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there,” Obama said. “We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space programme almost overnight, and 12 years later, we were walking on the moon.”
His vision – of a thriving economy, innovation in fields like energy and medicine, and a democratic process that works for everyone, not just the powerful – requires the importance of scientific knowledge to be recognised across society. Why does this unity matter so much? “Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us,” Obama said. He highlighted the enormous tension created by increasing inequality, clearly recognising that the rate of change in society is accelerating, leaving many on the sidelines. He pointed to the importance of affordable, highquality education and the danger of marginalising communities. “Most of all,” he said, “democracy breaks down when
Is that GM in my soup? Jeff Hecht raises his spoon to Campbell’s call for openness on genetically engineered food THE battle over labelling genetically modified food in the US is getting reheated. Industry giant Campbell’s has urged the US federal government to reverse its opposition to mandatory labels on products with GM ingredients, which many of its soups contain. It becomes the first major food maker to break from 26 | NewScientist | 23 January 2016
behind its stand. It doesn’t expect customers to spend a lot of time fussing about nutritional purity in the way that those shopping at an organic-heavy chain would. Yet it nonetheless deserves credit for serving it up straight. Such honesty is refreshing and essential. It’s distressing to hear big biotech and agribusiness saying “trust us, there’s nothing to worry about”, at the same time as they try to ban GM labelling. We have heard that before, from
opposition to enforced labelling. Best known for its canned soups, immortalised by artist Andy Warhol, Campbell’s products are typically more comfort food than health food – sometimes heavy on the salt and sugar, but with more “By the 1970s chemistry was a dirty word and nutritional credibility than consumers didn’t trust Twinkies or French fries. cryptic ingredients” That’s probably one factor
companies peddling pesticides, herbicides and CFCs – and it didn’t turn out well. We didn’t understand enough about ecology and food chains to fully anticipate the impact of the wide use of pesticides. And CFCs were a great improvement over the toxic gases used for refrigeration in the 1920s; nobody thought CFCs might destroy the ozone layer. Science paid a price for this. By the 1970s, environmental fiascos left the public wary. Chemistry was a dirty word, and consumers didn’t trust cryptic ingredients. We can’t afford to repeat those mistakes. Advocates of GM foods should explain their benefits, and
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Andrew Rosenberg is director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts
companies using and selling them must be honest about their use if they want to earn and deserve trust. The best way to convince consumers of the benefits is to let them see for themselves. That will also put pressure on advocates to deliver the promised gains. Anyone remember 1994’s ironically tasteless Flavr Savr GM tomato? If genetic engineering can create food with good nutrition and taste at reasonable cost and modest environmental impact, I will look for the label and consider it a selling point. n Jeff Hecht is a New Scientist consultant based in Massachusetts
One minute interview
From Ethopia to the stars We will see an Ethiopian astronaut in my lifetime, says Solomon Belay Tessema, the man behind the country’s space programme So far an observatory has been opened on Mount Entoto, near Addis Ababa. What will that be used for? The main aim of the two telescopes at the Entoto Observatory is to study the properties of variable and binary stars, the Milky Way and other galaxies. Another purpose of this observatory is to provide research and training in astronomy, space sciences, engineering and technology. Understanding astronomy will increase the scientific knowledge of our society. The observatory is also the headquarters for the Ethiopian space programme.
Profile Astrophysicist Solomon Belay Tessema is director of the Entoto Observatory and Research Center near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He lobbied the Ethiopian government to establish its own space programme, which launched in August 2015
Why does Ethiopia need a space programme? A space programme is not a luxury, but a key to securing food, increasing the productivity of agriculture and developing scientific thinking. Space technology is important for many things: satellites, for instance, are used for environmental and water management, and soil assessment. We use them for disaster planning, to gather meteorological data and to improve communications. So a space programme is a key instrument for sustainable development. Isn’t it an unnecessary extravagance, given that Ethiopia is not a wealthy country? This comment is completely at odds with the realities of the 21st century. There are also people living below the poverty line in many developed countries. I believe that the only means of reducing poverty is to transform our agricultural economy though science and technology. China started a space programme around 1952, and India started in 1954. Were they an extravagance?
Isn’t light pollution a problem, given that the observatory is close to a big city? Addis Ababa is growing and light pollution might become a problem within the next 10 years. Considering this, we are conducting site tests for a large optical and radio telescope on the mountains around Lalibela in the north of the country. It is expected to be one of the largest telescopes in the world, but a decision won’t be made until after we have results from tests at the site. The world already has a number of large telescopes. Does it need another one? The purpose of an astronomical observatory isn’t only to observe the sky, but to build capacity in research and training, encourage development of the space industry and establish strong international collaboration. Africa cannot always rely on the technology and human capital of developed countries; it is time for us to build our own. The world needs strong astronomical infrastructure in Africa. What are Ethiopia’s longer-term aspirations for space exploration? The long-term aspiration of Ethiopia is to be one of the leading countries in space exploration and industry in Africa. I assure you that we will see an Ethiopian astronaut in my lifetime. Interview by Linda Geddes
23 January 2016 | NewScientist | 27
Alemiye mamo
the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter.” He pushed us to engage at all levels of society: “What I’m asking for is hard. It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. ” Given stubborn resistance from Obama’s opponents on climate and energy, there was good news in the theme of reconciliation in the Republican party’s response by Nikki Haley. We can only hope the tenor of both addresses will carry forward as this year’s presidential race develops. As a scientist, I know how important it is that we reject cynicism, and engage in public life. That means sharing expertise with groups who have lacked access to it. It means talking about our expertise with policymakers and defending peers when they are attacked by powerful interests. Everyone benefits when science plays a role in policy – in protecting our health, defending our climate and building a stronger, fairer economy. n