Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 November 2008 | Nature 456, 149 (2008) | doi:10.1038/456149a
News
Modified genes spread to local maize
Findings reignite debate over genetically modified crops.
Transgenes from genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) crops have been found in traditional 'landrace' maize in the Mexican heartland, a study says. The work largely confirms a similar, controversial result published in Nature in 20011 and may reignite the debate in Mexico over GM crops.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Perhaps I'm dense but I don't understand this statement: "The team found transgenes in about 1% of more than 100 fields it sampled, including some sampled by Quist and Chapela in 2001." About 1 % of more than 100 fields means either 1 or 2 fields - so how could these 1 or 2 contain "some" of those sampled in 2001? Is this an attempt to blind with statistics?
This article draw an aline between accepting/neglecting people the effect of GM crops in future. Although we can be benefited today, it burn new generation feed. How can be we so selfish? Avoiding the paper to be published or closing your eyes from future prospect will not eradicate porblem. Actually it increase the effect of it in future.
Publication of scientific reports is a way of communicating different observarions and opinions. Why would a decision of publishing a scientific paper be based on political concerns? Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz)
Along with the results of the paper I am equally worried about the reason for which a scientific paper was rejected for publication and fortunately now it is out. I belive the paper would get the impact as it could have in terms of its results.
"Buylla suspects this may be the case, but she's not interested in pursuing another round of politically charged battles ? and will leave that work to others. " So,everyone likes to have impact factor but not politically charged battles. But is there real impact if there is no battle?
If it is important to preserve the landraces from cross-pollination from commercial maize, then that needs to be done. The results of the study are hardly suprising. It matters very little if there happen also to be safe transgenes present.
To repeat Martin Baeker's comment--I do not understand how 1/100 fields can be considered to "largely confirm" the previous Nature paper, especially when the most important claim of that paper was integration into landrace genomes, which was not even tested in the current study. I also do not see how Nature can justify the headline "Modified genes spread to local maize" when the very text of the article says that this was not tested. Would Rex Dalton or one of his editors please respond in this comment stream, and explain how and why they consider this responsible journalism, and how an article that contradicts itself to such an extent can be considered honest reporting?