Genetically Modified Organisms

The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) such as wheat or corn gets a lot of press.  For instance, this article from today's NY Times is about a farmer in Oregon who has found wheat in his field that has the gene inserted by Monsanto that will allow the herbicide Roundup to be used on it without killing it while getting rid of weeds.  The farmer's issue is that he has never purchased the wheat seed from Monsanto that has the genetic modification; nonetheless, its now present in his fields.  Out here on the West Coast this issue gets a lot of attention.  However, too many people protest the genetic alteration of plants for the wrong reason.

Too many think that the plants with altered genes will cause them some sort of harm.  I suppose they think that the genetic material will somehow alter their own genes.  It will not and let me explain.  When your body ingests food, it will break that food down to into very basic materials.  They'll be reduced in your stomach and bowels into carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and nucleic acids which are the building blocks used to make up cells.  The genetic material only exists at the cellular level.  After digestion there is no cell left and the genetic code which is in DNA and RNA are broken down to the pieces of the genetic alphabet, the nucleotides of adenine, thiamine, cytosine, guanine and uracil.  A gene only has meaning when the letters of the alphabet are in a very particular order. 

After digestion you cannot possibly determine from what type of cell and from what type of organism the nucleotides originated let alone what gene.  Genetic material cannot pass from one species to another via ingestion.  So, anyone who says that genetically modified foods could harm them by modifying their own genetic material is full of hogwash. 

Now what you can be offended about is the whole issue of using herbicides.  Any residue of herbicide on the plant being protected may cause harm.  And, even if the residue isn't present by the time you ingest it, the runoff of the herbicide into the soil and ground water may cause problems for other plants, animals or humans in the food chain that may be poisoned. 

In addition, you may be offended by the idea of making genetic modifications to any organism because of the problem of unintended consequences.  As illustrated in this story, once you let an organism out into the world you don't know where its going to end up  with a case in point being this Oregon farmer's wheat crop.  You also don't understand what impact it will have on the ecology.  We certainly have all sorts of examples of noxious plants such as some species of honeysuckle, scotch broom, and kudzu which have become dominant and crowd out other species of desirable plants. 

The other problem with genetically modifying plant either by engineering or by selective breeding is when it becomes the dominant variant and diversity is lost.  Take for example, the Irish Lumper potato in 19th century Ireland which became the staple of the population's diet until Phytophthora infestans came along and wiped out the crop resulting in the Great Famine.  If we become dependent upon the dominant variant, when pestilence of some sort occurs, as it always seems to do, we are at risk.  Diversity is good.

We may not want genetically modified food due to its impact on diversity.  We may not want to aid and abet the use of herbicides.  We many not want unintended consequences.  However, we do not need to fear our own genetic modification. 

A New Bishop of Oakland

A new bishop was ordained in Oakland last week, Michael Barber, SJ.  It was conducted at the beautiful Cathedral of Christ the Light.  I lived in Oakland for two years while going to school there.  I liked Oakland; it is vibrant, quirky, has cool architecture and a diverse population.  Medical people like to practice there because of the international population and the challenges of the diseases that they bring.  Berkeley with its culture is close by.  Jerry Brown, who is now the governor of California, had been mayor and is responsible for much of its revival.  He is present at the ordination and gets a shout out as a former Jesuit.

This video is the new bishop's homily.  I like his style and humor.  Barber is a native Californian and makes references accordingly.   Of course, I'm predisposed to liking Jesuits.  Why is that other than having spent a year in the Jesuits myself?  You have to go to the founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit is a derivative name), Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) who is the creator of the Spirtual Exercises.  The Exercises are a method of going back to the foundation principles of faith in Jesus and how he guides us in following him.  Its brilliant in that it makes use of not only scripture and tradition but psychology to help the person following the exercises to examine their motivations and behavior.  You learn how to find out what is really going on within and for making decisions that are fully integrated into your personhood.  The Exercises become a way of doing things for the rest of your life and not just for the 30 day retreat where they are initially made.

A Jesuit is trained to examine themselves every day and touch base with the basics of what they are doing and the decisions they make.  At their best, I think this is what can make Jesuits so effective.  They know what they are about and what they going to do; they are directed.

Slippery Slope

We all have adverse periods that come from time to time.  Perhaps it is the stress of school or of trying to find a job in a tough job market.  Maybe it is sickness or the death of someone close.  It could be due to a realization of diminished skills in a competitive market or, even worse, diminished capacity due to failure of mind or body. 

One of the things that I’m experiencing at the present time is some adversity.  It has been many years without a period of troubles for me. Two types of things I have observed about myself. 

First, I get angry and feel that the situation is not fair.  I can make a cogent argument about particular individuals’ rudeness, the inequities in the job market, etc.  I then can get vengeful and even make plans of how to get back at people, organizations, or the system.  But, then I think about the suicide bombers. Like a lot of Americans, I wonder how can they think such actions can help their cause.  However, when I become bitter and feeling sorry for myself, I can see how frustrated young men who have no chance for getting a job and following their dreams could strike back in the horrible ways we’ve been seeing in the Middle East and even Boston.  When anger, frustration and impotence takes over, rational behavior dissipates. It is a slippery slope.

The second thing that these feelings trigger are memories of prior incidents from my past.  I remember not being able to find a job in Cincinnati in 1976 and sleeping on my sister’s couch for months while typing cover letters to go out with resumes.  I remember getting stiffed for a rent deposit by a landlord.  I remember adding up the bills that my wife and I had as a young couple with a new baby and realizing that there was not enough income to meet our very frugal expenses.   I also recall with chagrin that I didn’t always respond appropriately and had regrets for a letter written or a conversation conducted.  The Newtonian law about every action having an equal and opposite reaction is true in personal behavior as it is in physics.  My responses of blowing off steam may or may not have had any direct result but there was regret on my part. And, I don’t know what may have been the long term effect on those caught in the shock waves of my actions. 

With this reflection I can only try to better manage myself in the current situation.  I realize that I need to recognize the anger but I should not respond to immediate wounds.  I can only work to improve my situation by changing my approach and to not give in to despair.  I can also remember those who have situations much worse than my own.  The Palestinian men, the civilians caught in the wars in Syria or Congo, the minorities that are discriminated against, the inequity of pay for women, or those who are chattel in their cultures.  Not only does such reflection give me better perspective now but I need to keep these things in mind when my relatively miniscule issues are resolved.

I saw this article by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Politco decrying the shortage of primary care medical providers.

Where is this shortage of primary care providers?  No one is hiring primary care physicians, physician assistants or nurse practitioners unless they have two years experience.  If there were a shortage, even new graduates would be getting job offers.  In this current job market, all employers are sitting on their hands regardless if they are expanding a factory or health care.

I think the shortage is based on government statistics not market research.  A number cruncher does a calculation based on census numbers of medical providers by job type and makes assumptions based on the population as a whole.  But the reality is that those organizations that hire primary care providers don't see the profit in adding more providers unless they see a sure thing about reimbursement over the foreseeable future.  Most health care in the US is done by very small medical practices.  The small practitioner is a conservative small business person who sees only risk in adding a person who doesn't bring their own group of patients with them.  The larger organization isn't seeing the market demand either.  The government is in sequestration so they aren't expanding hiring either. 

The Affordable Health Care Act is a good thing in the long run.  But, everyone who could hire, isn't doing much of it.  I think there is too much uncertainty in the market.  Unless the economy starts expanding, Obamacare administrators start setting down a firm set of rules, or sequestration ends, not much is going to change I am afraid.

A Jesuit as Pope

Last Wednesday I had heard about white smoke over the Sistine Chapel and watched live on television the announcement of the new pope and I was astounded that a Jesuit was named pope.  Jesuits are very rarely made bishops, cardinals, etc. for two reasons.  One, its to keep them focused on their mission and not politicking for higher office and, second, so they are not seen as a threat to the powerful so they work on their projects.  But, a pope can name a Jesuit a bishop if they choose.  N.B. Popes can do whatever they want!  However, what was most surprising is that John Paul II almost shut down the Jesuits 30 years ago due to their liberal ways and the church turned extremely conservative and doctrinaire these past decades.  Thus, its amazing that these conservative cardinals would choose such a man from an organization so recently scandalous.

I don't know him nor do I know anyone who does.  But, I've gotten into the whole thing and have been reading all the news stories about him.  I am encouraged and hopeful.  I had been thinking while this whole conclave was in the works that I just wished the church would quit talking about abortion, birth control, gay marriage, etc.  They cannot win the argument with the public and the downside is that it distracts from the primary message.  I bet I'm like a lot of Americans; when I hear a bishop start ranting about Obamacare and how the rights of Roman Catholics are being trampled because of its inclusion of birth control, I think, "You'd lobby to throw out the whole legislation and deny 50 million people health care over this issue when almost all Americans and a vast majority of American Catholics believe its just common sense to practice birth control?".  To my point, my mother and father who were midwest, small town conservatives had made that conclusion about birth control by 1965 and had no qualms about its morality.   In addition, I say to myself, "Why don't these bishops do anything about pedophilia?  Why don't they speak out about this sin which is truly grievous?  Why, are they complicit?".   When you're going down that route about issues which are the derivative results of theological reasoning, to use an English expression, "You've lost the plot." 

The plot should be the gospel.  And, Francis has started his papacy focusing on that message and the poor.  I hope it can continue and that his brother bishops will move on to  important matters.  Heal the sick, feed the poor, protect the weak, and preach the good news!

The Scientific Process

It was nice to have the break between semesters to read things I wanted to read. This is an article entitled "The Truth Wears Off" from the New Yorker by Jonah Leher.   It was published a few weeks ago about a phenomenon occurring with scientific studies on drugs, psychology and even acupuncture, and how when later replicated the results were disturbingly diminished.  The studies were legitimate, peer reviewed and confirmed by other researchers. However, the effects were not nearly as impressive when reviewed after further studies.  Its an interesting look at how complex it is to perform studies; randomness and bias creep in when even rigorous standards are used.  I suppose what is disappointing to many of us who have a belief in the scientific process is that our current expectations are wrong.  The expectation was that our published studies are valid and that we have solved a pieces of the puzzle and can move on to the next piece. 

We must be reminded that it is a process.  We study something; we have a theory of why it behaves the way it does; we set up a test to prove or disprove.  Then, we have others evaluate the study as well as try to disprove with their own tests.  Our time horizon just needs to be expanded to include further testing to obtain larger data sets as well as to further ferret out our own hopes (i.e. bias) for a result.  Remember the adage that if you torture data long enough it will tell you anything.  We get in such a hurry in our world of immediate gratification that we expect the same thing from science.  It just is not so and we will have to wait and see.

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

I purchased the iTunes Originals of Patti Smith recently and have been blown away.  I downloaded it to my iPod and listened to it several times during my drive from Portland to Oakland on New Years Day.  It has thirteen musical tracks with each preceded by a track of her describing the origin of the song or the cover of a song.  A number of them are her original pieces done over the past 35 years while there are also covers of Van Morrison, the Doors, Nirvana, and the Allman Brother’s Band.  I have known about Patti Smith for a long time but did not follow her until her recent autobiography “Just Kids” came out in 2010.  I now am beginning to understand why she is so important to rock and poetry. For example, her cover of Gloria was on her Horses album of 35 years ago as the track Gloria: In Excelsis Deo.  It starts with her own poem and then does its own ironic take on Van Morrison’s first big hit.  I remember the first time I heard this song in September 1966 after a football game while riding in my father’s car.  I loved the song and thought the lyrics were provocative, at least to a 13 year old.  Now, as I listen to Patti Smith’s version she captures the same male libido fantasy but since she is female and does so in an even more primal way, its even better understood.  This is rock and roll.