When McCarthyism Meets Science

Last week I was boycotted because of my scientific opinions.

About 6 weeks ago I was approached by the producers of a radio station in the Bay Area about interviewing me about my book WHAT A PLANT KNOWS. The producers defined their program as "a politically left, investigative, health/science show on the Pacifica station KPFA", I've done many such interviews since my book was published, for a variety of genres, including shows geared for science, current events, kabbala, Christians, and even kids, so I gladly accepted this invitation as well. In no case did the orientation of the station greatly influence the content. The interview was scheduled for July 9th at 11 PM Israel time, 1 PM in California.

Six hours before the scheduled interview I got the following email from my publicist  at FSG/SA books: "So sorry about this, but she has canceled the interview (upon realizing you’re in favor of genetically modified food). I’m so sorry! Now you don’t have to go on air at midnight, at least."

At first I found this amusing, especially as I wasn't even supposed to talk about agriculture and genetic engineering! It was even funny as a stereotype of Northern California.

But upon further consideration, I've realized that this censoring based on scientific opinion is very disturbing with dangerous implications.

Yes, the producers of this private radio show are not obligated to interview me or anyone else. But once having invited me about an issue completely unrelated to genetic engineering, to cancel this invitation based on other opinions, smacks of McCarthysim. Indeed as I did not at all relate to genetically modified food in my book, the producers of this show must have carried out a McCarthy-like background check to uncover my support of genetic engineering in agriculture. Having found a few posts in this blog (e.g. here ), or an interview about the use of GMO technology, decided to ban me (and my book) from their enlightened show.

If my book was interesting enough to warrant an interview with me before this information was revealed, why was it not after they found out that I think the genetic engineering is an essential tool in our arsenal to feed the world?

The answer I must come to is that the producers of this show are no different from other fundamentalists. I am sure the producers would shudder at this comparison, and they would likely be among the first to deride attempts to promote creationism in the public schools, or to silence scientists in the discourse on global warming. But the producers of this show with their anti-GMO agenda are truly no different from those who are anti-evolution or anti-climate change.

Both are based on deeply rooted beliefs. Both delegitimize anyone with an opposing opinion. And most disturbingly for our future, both are anti-science and technology. Both ignore, or dismiss as irrelevant, accumulating experimental scientific evidence that go against their beliefs. Both groups also often use the same types of convoluted thinking that includes argumentum ad ignorantiam.

In a separate blog I'll layout the reasons I happily eat genetically modified foods and feed them to my children. Any I welcome any debate on the matter. I would never boycott anyone who's willing to engage in scientific discourse.

No sibling rivalry for Petunias

NOTE: THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON APRIL 1, 2013!

Petunias grown in a nursery together with their sibling petunias thrived much better post-separation than did a single petunia grown on its own. This conclusion jives with numerous studies which show that puppies kept with their litter-mates for at least 8 weeks develop better than puppies separated from their siblings soon after birth, and also fits with accumulating evidence showing the importance to human development of keeping a baby in physical contact with people, rather than isolating a baby in a crib.

Seeds of Petunia hybrida were germinated in two different environments. In the green house termed “Petunia Patch”, the seeds were sown 5 cm from each other.

Petunias in the "Petunia Patch"

In the second green house termed “Onion Patch”, individual petunias were planted at least 50 m from each other. 5, 10, 20 and 45 days post-germination, individual plants from the Petunia Patch were transplanted to the Onion Patch. Control plants remained in each plot from germination until the end of the experiment. Each plot received the same watering and fertilizer regimen. Growth parameters (germination rate, height, leaf number, flowering time, flower diameter, seed set) were gathered daily over a two-month period.

The results were astounding. The longer the petunia stayed in the Petunia Patch, the more the individual plants thrived (see graph on left). The effect was especially significant for the first 10 days. Most of the petunias germinated in the Onion Patch, or transplanted early in life, failed to thrive. When asked to comment on the flowers that didn’t bloom, Drs. John N.Kamano, William E. Faber and Maurice Merl  said, “They were just lonely little petunias in an onion patch”.

These results have implications for home gardeners who are asked to purchase neighboring petunias in their local nursery so as to lessen the separation stress of plants upon leaving the nursery.

Guest Blog: Yunal Sapir and The Shy Red Bride

Anemone coronaria

Dr. Yuval Sapir is Director of the Tel Aviv University Botanical Gardens

The red-crowned anemone, Anemone coronaria, is one of the most common and beloved wildflowers in Israel. It's Hebrew name, Kalanit, is from the Hebrew word for bride, dressed beautifully in a red dress. From January through March, red carpets of anemones cover the hills in the Mediterranean region, with beetles buzzing in and out the flowers. These are glaphyrid beetles that are adapted to forage pollen and to mate on the red, bowl-shaped anemone flowers. The beetles are attracted by the large amount of pollen in the numerous anthers of the flower. While eating or mating inside the flowers, their body is covered with pollen grains that transferred on to the next flower.

Anemone flowers live for two weeks, but only in the start is the stigma receptive to accept pollen grains. Although the flowers are hermaphrodite, containing both sexes in the same plant, the female (stigma) is matures earlier than the male (pollen), effectively mandating that sex has to be between two different flowers. When the male function is active in the flower, there are other younger flowers that have their stigma ready. Interestingly, during its two-weeks life time, the anemone's flower keeps growing. Young, female flowers are small and perfectly red. Later on, the male flower is larger and also develops white ring around the center where the pollen is available for the pollinating beetles. Of-course, the male function of the flower benefits from being prominent on the white background. The more seen, the more visits and the more pollen grains spread out to females. The female function, on the other side, needs very little number of visits, because one pollen grain fertilizing an ovule is enough to make a seed. So no need to be prominent like the male; the small red flower is just enough to get pollen. The shy female will get what it needs soon enough.