FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912097753> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912097753 endingPage "R790" @default.
• W2912097753 startingPage "R789" @default.
• W2912097753 abstract "Mediawatch: Bernard Dixon looks at the reaction to the announcement last month of wheat genome data. Mediawatch: Bernard Dixon looks at the reaction to the announcement last month of wheat genome data. Scientists working in areas that are (rightly or wrongly) socially contentious might benefit by perusing readers' comments lodged on online newspaper websites after the appearance of announcements in their fields. On many occasions, they would find not only approving sentiments but also a surprising degree of hostility. The recent announcement of draft sequence coverage of the wheat genome provides a vivid example. “British scientists have cracked the genetic code for wheat — paving the way for a new breed of crops resistant to disease,” said the Daily Mail on 27 August. “The experts will today share the map of the wheat genome online for free, allowing growers around the world to develop super strains of the crop. The development could also lead to massively increased production — and in turn lower bread prices. But last night there were fears the breakthrough could open the doors to genetically modified ‘Frankenstein foods’ as scientists will be able to manipulate the wheat DNA.” The UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) triggered the media coverage by issuing a press release describing the collaborative work of groups at the universities of Liverpool and Bristol and the John Innes Centre in Norwich. “The genome sequences released comprise five read-throughs of a reference variety of wheat and give scientists and breeders access to 95% of all wheat genes,” said the BBSRC document. “This is among the largest genome projects undertaken, and the rapid public release of the data is expected to accelerate significantly the use of the information by wheat breeding companies.” Here, then, are some of the online comments provided by readers: “These so-called scientists have NO idea what GM crops will do to humans, animals or any other form of life”, “If GM wheat is engineered, then I guess many people will give up eating bread”, “Quit Messing With Our Food Supply! Idiot scientists, some things are meant to be left alone, especially things that You Have No Clue About”, “Disguised GM wheat, trash it”. The Daily Mail's ‘Frankenstein’ comment and past campaigning against genetic modification may have encouraged so-minded people to post remarks of this sort. Yet there were even stronger protests against The Independent, which not only highlighted potential benefits stemming from the wheat research but also lauded them in an editorial. Under the headline “Genome breakthrough heralds new dawn for agriculture,” The Independent's science editor Steve Connor wrote: “In a scientific tour-de-force that has been hailed as the most significant breakthrough in wheat production since the cereal crop was cultivated by the first farmers more than 10,000 years ago, scientists have decoded the genome of the wheat plant. As a result, new breeds of disease-resistant crops could be producing higher wheat yields in as little as five years' time, raising the prospect of lower bread prices and greater food security in a more populated world.” The accompanying editorial, headed “A victory in the battle against hunger”, said the news was “a cause for major congratulation” to the scientists involved, and for the decision to place their findings openly on the internet. Now here are some readers' responses: “I will never eat the crap. Are you out of your mind?”, “Sounds like ‘cure for cancer has been found’. Big corps would not allow their markets demise, just like the ‘cancer industry'!”, “GMO is a potential new plague brought about by mankind's greedy behaviour – birth control and reforms are the solution to overpopulation, not GMO. The EU should ban GMO forthwith”, “The words ‘Play with the natural balance of nature at your peril’ come to mind. It seems akin to taking a buzzsaw to a finely tuned ecosystem. Taking random cuts through the chain of life that binds us all”, “I am NOT for GMO foods because of the KNOWN mutations they cause to the HUMAN genome”, “And there they sit, the Uber-Rich patent holders, their backyards filled with totally resilient wheat, while the rest of the world, without the means to afford it, or even the means to save themselves from starvation, will die in the swamps of Mother Nature's own selective breeding program.” Even in the USA, which never experienced the European anti-GM furore, press coverage was followed by angry ripostes. “Scientists have published the first genome of wheat, an achievement that should benefit food security challenged by the Earth's population, climate change and emerging plant pasts,” the Discovery channel announced. “Scientists are too stupid to see the WHOLE picture of what this will do,” said one response, “It will only cause more intolerances, more digestive issues, more toxin accumulation in bowels (because the proteins which were easy to break down are now more ‘resilient’ to everything).” “Kiss wheat as we know it goodbye… Just like Monsanto Corp. There is no more natural soya,” said another. “I love science, but it's supposed to help us understand nature, not change it.” Misapprehensions maybe. Atypical perhaps. But the vox pop now available through the Internet on occasions of this sort provides sobering insights for scientists everywhere." @default.
• W2912097753 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912097753 creator A5033123185 @default.
• W2912097753 date "2010-09-01" @default.
• W2912097753 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2912097753 title "Flour powers" @default.
• W2912097753 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.021" @default.
• W2912097753 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20886680" @default.
• W2912097753 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2912097753 type Work @default.
• W2912097753 sameAs 2912097753 @default.
• W2912097753 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2912097753 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2912097753 hasAuthorship W2912097753A5033123185 @default.
• W2912097753 hasBestOaLocation W29120977531 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C141231307 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C201280247 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C104317684 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C136197465 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C141231307 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C150903083 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C154945302 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C17744445 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C199539241 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C201280247 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C41008148 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C54355233 @default.
• W2912097753 hasConceptScore W2912097753C86803240 @default.
• W2912097753 hasIssue "18" @default.
• W2912097753 hasLocation W29120977531 @default.
• W2912097753 hasLocation W29120977532 @default.
• W2912097753 hasOpenAccess W2912097753 @default.
• W2912097753 hasPrimaryLocation W29120977531 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W1481431397 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W1872127137 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2030640333 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2285862393 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2367737798 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2370559134 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2599768688 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W3128881704 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W3164573509 @default.
• W2912097753 hasRelatedWork W2498673973 @default.
• W2912097753 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W2912097753 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912097753 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912097753 magId "2912097753" @default.
• W2912097753 workType "article" @default.