The fact is GMO food may be generally regarded as safe - according to... the studies funded by the companies that promote these GMOs [conflict of interest much?] but I've got thousands of years of human consumption with no recorded negative side effects on the side of non-GMOs and you've got a couple of scientific studies that cover a laughably small "cross section" (if you can call it that) of society with no ability to do any long term studies because you only started down this path in very recent human history. Add to this the fact that when you pump your crops full of herbicides and pesticides there appears to be an alarming degree of correlation between the uptick in food allergies and autism. This is huge cause for concern. Whether this is the actual cause, the jury is out, but there is anecdotal evidence from a number of places including celebrities which suggests that removal of those foods from the diets of their autistic children has brought them back.
If someone can do an actual independent study on GMOs that isn't funded by pharma or agribusiness, doesn't suffer from a conflict of interest and compares in scale to the thousands of years of human history, I'd say the studies don't compare. Even as valid as they may appear on the surface, those of us on the outside have little confidence in them. Especially with information being leaked from inside these studies to suggest corruption and cover-ups to promote the corporate agenda all the way to the highest level to increase profits at all costs - up to and including the collateral damage of a few thousand deaths per million. Deaths that can easily be swept under the rug using underhanded tactics such as smear campaigns, sewing tactical doubt, lied about, gagged by payouts or flat out covered up. There are a number of reports of the FDA aiding and abetting in this behaviour. The F.D.A! If you can't trust the very Government office that is funded with the goal of looking after your best interests as the consumer, then who can you trust?
Nature has nothing to prove. Agri-business and Big-Pharma are run by people. People are fallible and when bound to their responsibility to investor profits, corrupt. Who would you rather trust?
It's no wonder people don't want to eat GMO. It might be the safest thing on earth, but when you add human fallibility and corruption into the equation, which way do you turn?
Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques that are not classified as "genetic modification" and, in fact, frequently accepted for "organic" labeling, like mutation breeding.
Almost everything in crop development is about tampering with crops on a genetic level; the differences are about particular techniques (and lots of the opposition to GMOs is subsidized by big business that makes money off of alternative techniques of tampering on a genetic level that produce results that are no more "food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects" than the results of genetic modification are.)
Which is virtually everyone.
> Which is virtually everyone.
Perhaps, but its no one that has any ground to be taken seriously on the issue of whether we should selectively abandon one of those techniques (in effect promoting the others.)
This is why we see continuous flip-flopping of scientific research that suggests that red wine is good for you, bad for you, makes no difference. 1 glass a day with dinner is fine, women should avoid it. Men should avoid soy etc. Yesterday salt was bad for you, today I see studies that claim they were wrong and it has little to do with high blood pressure and so the suggestions keep coming. If the science weren't flawed, we wouldn't see this continuous flip-flopping of scientific opinion, yet we do. So should those doing the research be taken any more seriously than those who just have concerns? Perhaps slightly, but I wouldn't offer it a great deal more credence, someone else will do another study tomorrow to prove it wrong and then I'm right back to square one. Until then, I'll stay on the fence eating my home grown heirloom produce that I can be as confident as I am able is safe - at least insofar as I know its providence and I can make an informed decision about it - chemical free. Draw conclusions as you see fit.
One GMO trait on the market kills corn borer. You know where we found the gene that kills corn borer? From a bacteria that already flourishes in the human digestive track.
Can you point to a single, documented, peer-reviewed case where a GMO crop has caused any adverse effect in humans?
Dwarf wheat has saved a billion lives. Golden Rice can do the same but only if the anti-GMO crowd gets out of the way.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific...
1) identified the presence of pesticides (GMO uses less pesticides than non GMO)
2) Quote "This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells"
3) Gluten is due to Roundup aka GMO use less pestised and herbisides. "Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate a weed killer called glyphosate (Roundup®). They contain high levels of this toxin at harvest. Corn and cotton varieties are also engineered to produce a n insecticide called Bt toxin.
4) Peer Review is not some magical fool proof system. It actually has been causing harm (Looking at the false claim that Vaccines causing Autism was peer reviewed)
"This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process." The report focuses primarily on the effects of these two toxins.
5) & 6) & 7) & 8) & 9) Once again a Round Up issue not really a GMO issue.
"Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies"
"The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields"
"Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease."
"A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine."
"Herbicide tolerant crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the crop to survive being sprayed with a given herbicide."
10) Flat out the same nothing harmful BUT the RISK.
"The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic."
Isn't it true that the harm is Round Up related?
So to unlink RoundUp from the sentiments against GMO is disingenuous. It's the genetic modification that allows the proliferation of herbicides and pesticides that are used in food crops and is making its way into our bodies, its these chemicals that the plants are genetically modified to withstand (and then pumped full of) that is in our food at the heart of a large proportion of the arguments against GMOs.
If there is no need for RoundUP, then there is no need for the genetic modification to make crops RoundUp ready. So you can't just argue that most of these arguments aren't about GMOs, they're about RoundUp which is a different argument. The two are inter-linked. If you didn't need RoundUp, you wouldn't need the genetic modification to make the crop RoundUp ready and RoundUp wouldn't be making its way into our bodies where you claim it does us no harm anyway.
Don't forget that the food industry has done this time and again with herbicides and pesticides:
It doesn't get into our bodies! Oh, it does? Okay, well, it doesn't matter, it's harmless. Oh, there are people getting sick and dying? Okay, we'll do a study. Oh, it's not harmless? There's evidence suggesting it is harmful? Okay, well it's not harmful to humans because we don't digest it. Oh, it is harmful to humans? Okay, the chances of it causing problems in humans is an acceptable trade-off because the amount it costs us in medical treatment [or settlements] is far less than the profit we make and we can pay off those that suffer severe consequences to keep their mouth shut so nobody else will ever find out.
You see where this is going right? You cannot act like this and expect people to trust you. The problem is that this behaviour has been recorded time and again with these companies. They've demonstrated time after time that they cannot be trusted and will put profits above everything else, including human life... yet every time they're caught in a lie they keep asking us to trust them again, like they're the NSA or something. You can only break people's trust so many times before they say fuck you and annex you to the sideline of history they'd rather forget. This is the position that big ag and big pharma are starting to find themselves in today.
No. Genetic modification for one particular purpose (herbicide resistance, the best example of which is Monsanto's RoundUp Ready) might increase the use of the particular herbicides (e.g., RoundUp) and might have some connection to levels of them in food we eat, but pesticides are a different issue, and, in any case, modification for purposes related to herbicide and pesticide use aren't the only genetic modifications.
So, insofar as there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about the use RoundUp Ready crops and other herbicide-resistant genetic modifications, it makes as much sense to generalize from that to generalized opposition to GMOs as it makes sense to generalize from legitimate reasons to be concerned about the use of software by the NSA to implement mass surveillance systems to generalized opposition to software.
GMO that are naturally resistant to insects will also help lower the amount of pesticides that are used.
In the 1990s I had friends that were wheat farmers and I would fly out there and work for 2 weeks for a vacation. It was fun but I also would go out and inspect the fields to see if there were bugs or weeds (Wild Wheat and mustard was the worst) to see if something had to be done to say the crops. My friend always was worried about losing his crops to something and sadly he did sometimes lose whole square miles of crops.
I'm not saying GMOs are bad, I'm not advocating against them. I choose not to eat them because for all the evidence that suggests they're useful and good there is too much smoke for there not to be something amiss. Just like I don't believe in God. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that evidence hasn't yet convinced me there is one, equally it's not yet convinced me there isn't one. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't negate divine intervention.
You've found there is bacteria in the human digestive track that kills corn borer. Awesome. You're somehow convinced that genetically engineering this into corn is good. Fantastic. Your studies have shown no negative side effects... yet. When were these studies enacted and who were they paid for by? Who were they carried out by? Whi were they carried out on? Is there any conflict of interest there? Can you prove that your genetic modification to this corn or the Golden Rice will have no longer term health effects, either for the positive or negative? Not so much. There are many mutations and genetic defects that don't become evident for one or more generations further down the gene pool.
I'm not saying your argument is false, I'm not saying that Big-Ag and Big-Pharma are necessarily bad. The problem is that you're playing God and you're asking for evidence where it's documented and peer reviewed that it has caused adverse effect in humans... that cannot be swept under the rug, paid off, gagged or covered up. There is no evidence, because it appears that any such evidence has been er... removed from circulation. Again, not to say it has been removed from circulation, but appearance of underhandedness is usually accompanied by some level of actual underhandedness.
When Big-Ag and Big-Pharma start acting completely transparently and putting all their cards on the table, presenting all their findings fairly and without bias, with actual independent studies that show both positive and negative and letting the public make a truly informed decision, you're going to be up against the anti-GMO crowd. These people want answers, they want transparency and they want honesty. They don't want to have to dig and find flawed evidence, complacency, corruption, misdirection and conflicts of interest every time they dig a bit further.
Prove your honesty and prove your transparency and people will be more receptive to any evidence you have to present. Until then, people are going to remain skeptical and there's not an awful lot you're going to be able to do about that - except with a well engineered media campaign to brainwash the masses like you've been doing remarkably successfully with everything else.
"Monsanto is a medium sized company ($57.43B). Is it really possible that they’ve manipulated tens of thousands of scientists performing thousands of studies for three decades with no whistleblowers? Could Monsanto’s power have resulted in a scientific consensus that has been bent completely to their will? In comparison, fossil fuel behemoths Exxon Mobil ($394.83B), Chevron ($215.45B) and BP ($150.07B) (total: $760.35B) have been completely stymied in their efforts to buy a scientific consensus on climate change."[1]
"Biology Fortified’s GENERA database lists more than 1,000 studies with another 1,300 or so to add. GM crops have been investigated for more than 20 years. There are nuances in conclusions, but the evidence is consistent whether the study was funded by industry or the European Commission: GM crops are as safe as other conventional or organic crops and foods—or safer."[2]
[1] http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-stud...
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/23/will-the-us...
Of course it isn't the whole industry, but it does get most of the attention, e.g. this NPR article[1] mentions Monsanto 17 times and uses it as one of only three tags(seed saving and gmos are the other two) - despite the piece being about GM seeds, not specifically Monsanto.
> or even the biggest corporation by market cap in the industry
The "Big Six" are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta[2][3].
"The top 10 seed companies account for $14,785 million – or two-thirds (67%) of the global proprietary seed market.The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market."[4]
Sure DuPont and Dow have bigger market caps than Monsanto (or more importantly, more revenue) but they're also larger and more diverse business with seeds making a much smaller portion of their total revenue than Monsanto. But even forgetting that the original point (that the oil industry has far more money than the GM industry) still stands - Dow's market cap is $60B, DuPont's is $68B, Monsanto's is $55B...market caps like that wouldn't even break the top ten for oil companies[5].
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...
[2] http://www.biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-co...
[3] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/%22Big_6%22_Pesticide_a...
[4] http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-see...
[5] http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010715...
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#Issues
Is this a well-funded crowd, full of large corporate support? What do they have to gain with their 'propaganda' exactly?
Just FYI, I used to do research where I spliced genes for a certain enzyme into yeast in order to study the enzymatic mechanism, so I'm not exactly uninformed.
What is scientific nonsense is generalizing, either one way or the other
Golden rice looks like a great invention, but being in favor of it means that we can't oppose any GMO or any company producing GMOs?
Each case is different.
Humans have been genetically modifying food (and animals) long before DNA was known.
Then again, like every other product meant for human consumption it should be subject to scrutiny and monitoring, to ensure saftety.
And even then, most companies will tune food products to maximize profits, and this generally means favoring the looks, yield, consistency and shelf life of a product, as opposed to flavor and texture, with the result of food that looks and feels "artificial".
In general banning all GMO is a fairly stupid political and marketing move, that has little bearing on the final quality of the product: if anything they should guarantee thier customers the freshness and the quality of the ingredients, independently of their origin.
If you were to genetically engineer products for everyone's good, it would make sense to enter such uncharted territories, but to do it solely for the good of one entity is simply horrific.
I guess the 'anti-scientific folk' in Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, and Russia who have banned GMO crops altogether are beyond the pale.
Governments banning something doesn't mean it's either a) based on science or b) the right thing to do.
As I pointed out in another comment[1] there's a wide gap between "what the public thinks and what scientists know" regarding GMOs[2]. Having an opinion that is the opposite to scientific consensus is by definition anti-scientific.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9451873
[2] http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/theres-a-gap-between-what...
But instead we have populist fear holding sway in all those countries instead.
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/04/27/dr-swanson-gmos-and-r...
See this 1996 study: Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8594427
This is also obvious, to tell the truth.
Don't forget that before we had GMO's we just blasted millions of seeds with radiation until we found mutants with cool characteristics, which we then branded as natural mutations, and mass distributed.
I wonder if that's how Chipotle does it....
If the old methods were as bad as you suggest, that doesn't prove GMOs are good. It merely extends the anti-GMO argument to modern radiation breeding methods too.
The most compelling anti-GMO argument is that they could produce an interaction we wouldn't have been able to predict due to complexity, and the interaction could have negative effects that would never have been produced by random selection in nature. Once this is in the wild, it could be impossible to eliminate. Critics argue we are aiming at known, limited upside benefits, while facing unknown, potentially much larger risks. Does this apply equally to radiation mutation breeding?
The problem is, there is no proof in that statement. It's just suspicion, fear, uncertainty, doubt. Instead of proving an actual harm, anti-GMO people are asking the industry to prove a negative.
It would be like asking for a cup of water, and I hand you a cup that I filled from my Brita filter. You complain saying the mechanism contains a carbon filter, and that you believe a carbon filter can contaminate the water. Suddenly you're forcing the burden of proof on me, essentially asking me to prove your fear incorrect. Your fear that is based on... nothing. That's not how science should work. If you have uncertainty about something after the initial studies have been completed to verify safety, the burden is on you to prove it's a danger.
In the case of GMOs, the industry has thrown the public a bone, so-to-speak, and done extensive testing to show that the crops are safe, even when there is no indication that they SHOULD be unsafe. Now, don't get me wrong, there is evidence that PESTICIDES are unsafe, but there's no real evidence that just adding something like a carrot gene to rice is dangerous. NO. EVIDENCE. Yet that doesn't stop people from complaining. When the evidence doesn't support their view, they immediately say that the research was funded by the evil GMO corporations, and rarely even bother to actually look up the real study.
It's like Aspartame... It's one of the most tested food ingredients in history, there is ample documentation to show that it is perfectly safe, yet some people still believe it causes everything from diabetes to cancer. How much solid, peer-reviewed proof do they have to back up their belief? None.
A quick search on google scholar found dozens of articles like this that suggest problems linked to aspartame use:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1249.full
The jury is still out, but it's not correct to say that aspartame has been proven conclusively safe.
I would also like to point out the conclusion in the article you linked:
> These 3 studies add to a growing body of evidence on the adverse health effects of soft drinks; however, given the limited and conflicting data available, these findings can at the present time be considered only suggestive, not conclusive, but they warrant further investigation in other prospective studies with data on long-term intake of soft drinks, diet soft drinks, and aspartame
Take that along with the extensive references in the Wikipedia article and you can see why I say the public is asking the food industry to prove a negative. The closest they can come is, "something that contains aspartame seems to be a bit unhealthy, but not always, but sometimes," yet those same people (like you) will say that aspartame itself is the issue. It's just silly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25313461/
You may be right about aspartame. I'm not an expert. Perhaps that study was also disproven.
But my larger point is that it's really, really hard to prove a negative to an acceptable standard. Particularly across all categories we care about, not just cancer and heart disease.
Have the biome effects been disproven too?
To the extent that it can be said to approximate something valid in the case of GMOs, it applies at least as strongly to mutation breeding (regardless of how the mutation is achieved, radiation isn't the only mutation source used in mutation breeding.)
a) because understandably customers may have concerns and b) results are very, very random
Here's one in Japan that seems to be still active: https://www.google.com/maps?q=2425,+Kamimurata,+Hitachiohmiy...
The circle in the middle is the radiation source, and the further away the plants were planted the less mutations occurred, with the plants right next to the source dying.
Fallacy aside, it's an emotionally persuasive argument. I'm wondering if it's a central talking point that was developed by a marketing team for forum use.
What is the standard non-GMO breeding method?
There are more ways to raise the mutation rate in plants, for example, by using chemicals like ethyl methanesulfonate. Ironically, many "organic" companies still sell cultivars that have been mutated using these processes. I'd be more scared of a plant with several unknown, unpredictable mutations than of a plant that has a single, directed mutation.
The most "standard" breeding methods are still the "manual" ones like hybridization, where you use two different plant lines that are as homozygous as possible (in other words, they have been inbred for many generations so there's little to no genetic variety, you won't have any surprises when you use them for breeding).
One famous example are Norman Borlaug's high yield semi-dwarf wheat varieties (edit: made roughly at the same time as atomic gardens were en vogue) - he crossed dwarf wheat varieties from Japan that gave little yield with high-yield varieties from America that were so thin that if the season was good and the seeds were heavy, the plants would break from the weight. The resulting semi-dwarf varieties had good yield with a stable stem.
If I want to have a Scandinavian child, I just reproduce with someone from Sweden.
If I want my child to be immune to the sun and skin cancer, I just add a gene from the leaf of a tree, inject it into his DNA and see what happens?
I support GMOs but nuance is important.
Says someone comparing plants with human children to make a point. (And no, not much of a difference, other than with modern technique we have more control over the results)
There was a Forbes article[1] last year that linked to a number of studies. If you're looking for a less journalistic take and want to poke around with the data/studies yourself check out GENERA[2] (a database of peer reviewed GMO studies).
FiveThirtyEight did a good piece on the gap between "what the public thinks and what scientists know" and saw the widest margin in the subject of GMO safety[3]. A recent NYT op-ed explains some of the benefits of GMOs and what caused the author to change their stance[4].
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-...
[2] http://genera.biofortified.org/
[3] http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/theres-a-gap-between-what...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-c...
Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011 http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-engineered-crops-mo...
The same thing is happening to other herbicides, just slower, because they weren't used as much. They weren't used as much because they were replaced with glyphosate.
I recall about over 15 years ago how all my peers and many experts in the industry said the "consensus" on building web services was to use SOAP BPEL and develop using waterfall methodologies. At that time Agile development and REST services might have been considered quackery.
One of the links in my comment was to GENERA[1], a large database of peer reviewed GMO studies, feel free to "dig" away.
> 15 years ago how all my peers and many experts in the industry said the "consensus" on building web services was to use SOAP BPEL
First of all that's just generic use of the word consensus[2], not quite the same as the concept of scientific consensus[3]. Scientific consensus can certainly change over time (you wouldn't want science to just assume whatever if previously thought was right, would you?) but that doesn't mean we should dismiss the current collective judgment of scientists because they might change their position X years from now.
[1] http://genera.biofortified.org/
What we think of scientific consensus may not be what it actually is in reality. https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourse...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA
Best TL:DR in video form on the issue. It is 2 minutes long and it stumps every anti-GMO friend I have. They don't switch but they also can't argue "natural" apples, strawberries or wheat since they are all artificial.
Golden rice was planned to address the problem of a (almost) rice-only diet leading to vitamin-a deficiency. This completely ignores the other effects of such a imbalanced diet. Eating different kinds of food is like the number one recommendation of food scientists.
The next step would be replacing the varieties of rice grown by golden rice. This includes the difficulty of distribution. This is really notable because one of the reasons for the project is that it's seen as too hard to distribute other sources of vitamin A (like pills) in those regions. There also might be a reduction of genetic diversity.
The interesting part is that wheat is not commonly GMO, but it is still sprayed with roundup in the harvesting process to increase yield.
The most common GMO crops are: canola, corn, cotton, soy and sugar beets.
Canola, soy and sugar beet modification is for roundup readiness (glyphosate). Corn and cotton are modified to make them resistant to insects without using additional pesticides.
Newer studies have shown potential risks to mammals from excessive intake of roundup:
http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-c...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/biotech-crops-use-less-pes...
Also, pedantic lesson for ESL learners: "You're arguing for GMO then."
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230443110457...
which is weakly responded to by
http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/05/response-wall-street-journ...
Will the producers spend the budget to proactively and aggressively seek to test for health failure modes once the product is accepted by regulatory bodies and even consumers? No.
Even if they happen to find suggestions of a potential defect, will they pursue those hints with well-funded efforts for timely conclusions? No.
If long-term harm is found, will they continue to sell the product unless forced to retract by regulatory action or consumer backlash? Yes.
Let me put it another way. Say there is a $10B annual profit on $100B annual revenue for just one GMO product. It is all on the line, including the hefty annual bonuses contingent upon that profit, by the personal action of the executive board upon the results of a study that isn't well-publicized, but internal scientists say the study's conclusion of a strongly-suggested causal link are legit. Through inaction, "we need to study this more before taking drastic steps", yet another profitable quarter and bonuses are assured. What do you reasonably expect to happen in the real world?
The historical record conclusively shows the food industry as a whole does not work with extremely long-term (decades) health issues. They generally leave that up to the medical industry, which introduces an entirely different set of problems. It is only recently that the lipid hypothesis is coming under much more rigorous scrutiny. We continue to flood our supply chains with simple carbohydrates, even after ample evidence showing how they play a large role in harming our bodies when consumed in large quantities over decades-long periods.
Understand I'm not claiming this is by malicious action. This is simply what happens under our current incentive structures and our current civilization's culturally-driven risk assessment mechanisms. As a species so far, we're pretty good at responding to fast-acting risks on short timelines, but as the risks' effects become more diffuse to detect over longer timelines, our capacity to respond, especially through committee-heavy organizations, is sharply diminished.
Stepping back for perspective, this is actually somewhat a good problem to face. This signals our tool usage has gotten complex enough that we are facing increasingly longer timespans of effects, meaning over successive generations we are gradually building up surplus productive capacity to fund increasingly sophisticated and/or complex tools to address ever more complex problem spaces.
[1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/go...