Evolution infringes upon Monsanto's patent

NPR has a useful story today by a guy who interviewed people who were involved in Monsanto's application for release, in 1993, of "Roundup Ready" crops, that is crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's best selling herbicide, glyphosate, sold as Roundup. The idea, which has made Monsanto many billions of dollars, is that if the crops are immune to the herbicide, and weeds are not, fields can be sprayed liberally. Farmers don't have to do mechanical weeding, and Monsanto gets to sell them both the patented herbicide and the patented resistant seed. This set of facts, along with Monsanto acting like the faceless corporate giant that it is in defending its patents, has made it probably the most despised company among the organic farming crowd, vilified far more than competitors like ADM or DuPont.

The point of the article is that Monsanto falsely rejected the possibility that carpeting the world in Roundup would lead to the evolution of Roundup resistant weeds.

Then the story, written by Daniel Charles, continues like so:

Oops. Since then, resistance to glyphosate has emerged in 20 different weed species.
  I called up several people who were at Monsanto at that time. Why didn't people there think resistance would happen? They all told a similar story.
First, the company had been selling Roundup for years without any problems. Second, and perhaps most important, the company's scientists had just spent more than a decade, and many millions of dollars, trying to create the Roundup-resistant plants that they desperately wanted — soybeans and cotton and corn. It had been incredibly difficult. When I interviewed former Monsanto scientists for my book on biotech crops, one of them called it the company's "Manhattan Project."
Considering how hard it had been to create those crops, "the thinking was, it would be really difficult for weeds to become tolerant" to Roundup, says Rick Cole, who is now responsible for Monsanto's efforts to deal with the problem of resistant weeds.

In case the holes in their logic haven't struck you, allow me to provide a quick lesson in how natural selection (or in this case semi-natural selection), as opposed to genetic engineering, works.

Engineers at Monsanto were surely aware of natural selection and its proclivity to producing resistant pests, but they considered the idea that there would be even a hint of heritable resistance in the weed populations to be highly unlikely. This is because they failed to consider the following facts:

A. They were testing thousands of highly targeted potential genetic alterations in the lab, on a few crop species, and found that almost none of them conferred significant resistance. They didn't consider that after global distribution of their crops, trillions of genetically distinct (although totally untargetted) genetic modifications (that is, natural mutations) in thousands of weed species would be tested for their resistance. When something potentially useful did pop up, Monsanto was again able to test hundreds or maybe thousands of slight modifications on that, while natural selection could within a few years test millions of potential modifications iteratively over several generations. So they didn't consider that nature's search for solutions would be far more exhaustive than theirs.

B. I'm sure engineers have a term for closely examining one type of failure risk while completely ignoring others. That's what Monsanto did. They were look hard at making plant tissue resistant.  From the same story:

Some weeds, Cole says, appear to keep glyphosate from entering the plant at all; others sequester the herbicide in a spot where it can't do much damage. Monsanto's genetically engineered crops use a different technique entirely.

So they didn't consider the possibility that some plants would simply shield their vital tissues from the toxin, the way many metal resistant plants do.

C. They assumed that because Roundup had been used broadly for several years already, and there were no known resistant weeds, weed populations simply had no resistance traits available for natural selection to favor. They failed to consider that with the introduction of their crops, and the resulting increase in usage, both the population size of the exposed weeds and the force of selection for resistance would increase dramatically.

The force of selection is a measure biologists use to ask the question, how much difference does a heritable change of a certain size in a trait (for example a 0.1% increase the probability of surviving a spraying with Roundup) make to the fitness of the individuals with that altered trait. So long as most individuals in a weed population were never exposed to Roundup, the force of selection for resistance to it was small. Resistance doesn't help much if you are never exposed. The seeds blowing into farmers fields were coming from unexposed sub-populations, and so were not resistant. When we started blanketing the world in Roundup, the force of selection increased, because most every weed subpopulation over huge areas was exposed. So their experience up to that point led them to underestimated the force of selection for resistance. And if there is one thing that evil empires should know, it is to never underestimate the force.

Why I can love chocolate

The conversation usually goes something like this:

Me- I'm allergic to caffeine. It makes me get a terrible headache, then get really sleepy and sleep for 12 hours and then I still have a terrible headache.

You- Um, but I see you eat chocolate all the time. You're always talking about chocolate and writing about chocolate. You are a total chocolate adict.

Me- Yeah! I love chocolate. It's my main drug.

You- Um, but chocolate has caffeine.

Me- Well, it has a tiny bit, but mostly it has other closely related chemicals.

I've had this conversation with enough dozens of people that I figured I should look up what was in chocolate. And it turns out I actually did know what I was talking about (for once). According to this article in the journal European Food Research and Technology, cacao beans have three main kinds of very similar chemicals in the group called methylxanthines. These are theobromine (named for the Cacao tree, Theobroma cacao), caffeine, and theophylline. Raw fermented beans straight off the cacao tree have lots of theobromine, very little caffeine and almost no theophylline. In the various preparation steps between then and when I actually eat it, much of the caffeine is lost. The concentration of these various chemicals depends a lot on the strain of cacao, the growing conditions and the processing, but most chocolate has 20 to 100 times as much theobromine as caffeine. A cup of hot cocoa has about half as much caffeine as a cup of decaf coffee.

The fact that chocolate doesn't make me have a terrible headache and put me to sleep is likely (likely meaning I am speculating) either because there is too little caffeine in it to matter or because it has so much theobromine. Theobromine could be counteracting the caffeine, or it could be competitively excluding the caffeine from the neuroreceptors it normally binds to. Basically this means that theobromine and caffeine are so similar that they stick to the same spots on my neurons, and if the theobromine gets there first, the caffeine may not be able to stick, and therefore not affect me. But the moral of the story is I can eat chocolate without worrying about the caffeine making me sick.

Chemicals of Science

A very kind scientist at McGill sent me samples of four different strains of rotifers, along with the formula for the medium he keeps them in. The rotifers look so lively and healthful that I decided to buy the chemicals and mix up some of his medium. The problem is that while I need a few milligrams of this and a couple of grams of that, nobody sells the stuff in quantities smaller than 500 grams of this and 1kg of that. So at the end of the project, I have almost the entire container left over, and because it came in a form that is so concentrated as to be toxic if swallowed, it all has to be treated as toxic waste. Iron-chloride is not very toxic, but if you swallow 500g you would be very unhappy. So what I will probably end up doing is mixing lots of extra solution, basically making artificial pond water, because that does not need to be disposed of as toxic waste.
I was complaining about all this to some colleagues, who replied that this is a perennial problem, and that almost any time one does lab work, one has to budget for disposal of the left over chemicals, because one can't buy them in small enough quantities. The College of Chemistry on campus has a chemical reuse library for this purpose (drop off unused chemicals with out paying for disposal, pick up extra chemicals without buying a whole container) but they don't allow people from other departments to participate, even if we ask real nice.
I looked through the various suppliers and ordered the smallest quantities possible, even when it cost more.
How thoroughly wasteful and silly this whole system is.