Now that you have bounced back: An Open Letter to Linda Ikeji, By Semiu A. Akanmu

Dear Linda, 

It is not by accident that you have become a cynosure for media outlets, co-bloggers, and readers’ community, in respect to the enjoyed coverage of your recent travails in the blogging enterprise, while the readers scamper restlessly to grasp the latest development of these unfolding episodes. Truth is, no matter our varying reactions to the loss of your initial blog-site, these features –hard work, resilience, and persistence –cannot be taken away from your person. And these are recipes of your material success. 

 

Photo Credit: Techcabal.com

 My initially-thought intervention on the said plagiarism and copyright infringement allegation was to dabble a bit into what amount to intellectual property theft, citing cases as much as I could afford, as an academe of patented works, author of published scientific findings and academic position papers, and a book author in the making. Also thought was the need to send a word or two, to those raising arms on your behalf on petty arguments of sexism, patriarchy, or attempting to absorb you of any irregularity because of your self-evident hard work.  However, with the debut post on your new blog-site; http://lindaikejionline.com/, I am glad to see you have eaten the humble pie by apologizing to those you might have used their contents, without due permission and/or credit. To err is human, perfection is for the divine. We are all work-in-progress, and we will only stop learning the day we bite the dust. The personal brickbat between you and Aye Dee is not within my interest, gossip and entertainment commentators might delve into that.

As a member of your demographics (age bracket), and as a lesson to all, I will still have to drop some words for you. Now, that you have bounced back:

1.     Know that not all who are criticizing you are haters of your progress. This social psychology is a battered type, a direct consequence of what materialism amounts to, and unguided celebration of material growth, accompanied with egoism. The perception of being hated blocks the much-needed self-examination to see the senses in the criticism of the critics, and discard the nonsenses into their right place –refuse bin.

2.     I know you are not a neophyte, your present hang-up, to me, is pure negligence. It is high time you did the needful to fortify your booming blogopreneurship. You need to incorporate your enterprise. Registering companies in Nigeria is as simple as A-B-C. This will mitigate legal lashes. You can never tell. Your personal property must not be the unfortunate victims. You must also get a company lawyer, on part-time preferably, to expose you to the intricacies of legal framework, guiding copyright law, and intellectual property. 

Dear Linda, it is as simple as this. Your ascension to the millionaire club is a plus to my generation. At least, we now have another person to be invited for fund raising ceremony, any time we are having one.

I wish you good luck in future endeavour. Load of love from far-away east of the globe.

Semiu A. Akanmu writes from Sintok, Malaysia.

Guest Blog Post: In Defense of GMOs, by AbdulKareem Musa Alaba

Guest Blog Post  

In Defense of GMOs, by AbdulKareem Musa Alaba

GMOs or "genetically modified organism," is an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. This alteration of the genes usually entails inserting genetic material into an organism through biotechnology technics without natural mating, breeding or reproduction. Instead of breeding two plants or animals together to bring out certain traits in the offspring, the plant, animal or microbe has DNA from another organism inserted. Creating GMOs is one type of genetic engineering.

There are two types of GMOs: A transgenic organism is a GMO that contains DNA from another species. A cisgenic organism is a GMO that contains DNA from a member of the same species, and is generally regarded as no risk type of GMO. GMOs have been used in various ways, including creating mice with certain traits for the purposes of vivisection, but the GMO debate is centered on food products for direct human consumption and on feed for livestock.

Genetic modification of organism, like any other new technology, should be viewed in the light of what has gone before. Mankind has been manipulating the genetics of crops for thousands of years. Wheat, for instance, the world's major crop, is a hybrid of different species. It probably arose from a rare natural occurrence but has subsequently been maintained artificially.

The modern (non-GM) wheat is unable to exist in the wild because it cannot disperse its seed. Furthermore, plant breeders have spliced in pieces of chromosomes from several other species. The new GM technology allows genes to be added more precisely than before and their effects to be studied more carefully. However, because it also allows almost any source of genes to be used it is an extremely powerful technology that has to be treated with care and respect.

GMO technology can develop crops with higher yield, with less fertilizer, less pesticides, and more nutrients. Traditional breeding can be very slow because it might take several generations before the desired trait is sufficiently brought out and the offspring must reach sexual maturity before they can be bred. With GMO technology, the desired genotype can be created instantly in the current generation.

GMOs may not be natural as many critics say, but not everything natural is good for us, and not everything unnatural is bad for us. Poisonous mushrooms are natural, but we shouldn't eat them. Washing our food before eating it is not natural, but is healthier for us.

The argument against genetically modified foods is that it contains novel proteins that could trigger allergic reactions in people who are either allergic to one of the components of the GMO or in people who are allergic only to the new substance. But this is not totally true because GM technology is the only technology to be regulated from its inception, before any mishaps had occurred. Scientists who developed the technology set up a series of voluntary regulations in 1974 which have generally become officially incorporated by governments throughout the world.

Another point raised by critics is that GMOs pose a threat to the environment. They exist and take valuable natural resources from native and unaltered organisms. But as it's practiced today, agriculture damages the environment more than any human activity. GMO crops will ease that negative impact. Insect resistant GM crops, such as those containing the bacterial Bt gene (which makes the plan itself toxic to key pests), allow farmers to dramatically reduced their use of spray insecticides and which will allow next-generation seeds to maintain high yields while using less water and chemical fertilizer. Today, genetic engineering is playing a critical role in protecting finite soil and water resources, staving off crop diseases, and responding to the pressures of climate change.

The fact is; the majority of arguments against GMOs based solely on emotion and rhetoric NOT scientific facts. There are no proven examples of GMO products adding ricks. In contrast, there are many examples of the technology reducing ricks. GM technology is not safe – nothing is – but it has a very effect records.   

~AbdulKareem Musa Alaba is a Research Assistant at National  Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Egypt

 Read: Series on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

BLOGGER'S NOTE:
1. For further reading on Defense of GMOs, readers are encouraged to read Sarah Zhang's position, accessible through this link. 
2. The next blog post, soon (in sha Allah), will be on the case against GMOs, and finally (the third series) will be on the world politics of this topical issue.
Thanks for keeping a date...

Series on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

Series on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): (1) In defence of, (2) the Case Against, and (3) the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Politics of GMOs

The Background

The need for this modest attempt to inform and educate ‘us’ about GMO is provoked by a status update I came across on June 18, 2014, on Synopsis’ wall. Synopsis (on Facebook) is one of the few groups on social media that serve as teleclassrooms. It is a repository of diverse and ‘intimidating’ intellectuals –young and old. It is a rare privilege for students like me to be part of such intellect-stimulating forum, drinking from the knowledge of the giants.

This status update is made by Sadiq Mohammed, and the words in quote are credited to Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri; one of the numerous opinion pushers in Nigeria blogosphere. For proper understanding of the context, I reproduce the words here:

“Governor Nyako has more important work to do other than throwing darts and accusations about the genocide in the north. Its maniacally bewildering that Governor Nyako has remained silent ever since GMO seedlings were introduced and mass-planted in farmlands across the northern region. These seedlings containing genetically-modified and scientifically altered seeds will yield poisonous crops that will decimate the northern populations even faster than the Boko Haram insurgency (sic). In the next few years, cancerous tumours, organ failures, malignant tissue growths and other incurable diseases will be witnessed at a scale never seen elsewhere, in the north and across Nigeria where these crops will be sold.
ALL western nations have banned GMO seedlings and crops, and it’s a surprise that northern governors have embraced this lethal agricultural “innovation’ without as much as a whimper.

Not even a murmur.

Insurgency has driven many farmers planting natural crops away from their farmlands, while fertilizer is hardly within their reach. Have you wondered why these farmers planting the GMO crops have never been attacked? Northerners and their leaders should search deeper for their true cause of their problems. They seem to be looking at the wrong directions, for now.
We are at a time that everyone wants to be politically correct. I have a solemn duty to tell this truth. Thank me later…”

Reading this update, even at its first instance, I knew all is not well with its claim. I could unequivocally see: (1) proof-bereft proposition (GMO seedling…will yield poisonous crops), (2) unconditional and hasty conclusion (decimate the northern populations… cancerous tumours, organ failures, malignant tissue growths) and (3) fallacy of hasty generalization (ALL western nations have banned GMO seedlings). 

Without any heuristics knowledge, I remembered vividly, my experience during an academic visit –in company of my colleagues and high school students – to International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, in late 2010.  We were made to know, and we were shown these genetically modified orange and palm trees, cultivated so as to fasten its harvest period. We were all wowed, not only because many of us were just seeing such pretty cultivation of palm and orange trees, but also for its business and investment sense. Again, in Malaysia, I later found out that many of the species of the oranges available for consumption here has no seed (lings) whatsoever. My curiosity found that we are consuming genetically modified oranges.

So, reading Victoria’s proposition, I was imagining in my wildest dream, the number of people that have consumed these poisonous crops, the ready to be decimated statistics, and the victims (or to-be) of organ failure. Even, if I am not absolutely certain of Nigeria’s sensitivity to her citizens’ health, I am cock-sure Malaysia will never toe such path of ignominy. The statement that ALL western nations have banned GMOs is a naked error. Even when one is not conversant with world geography, it is in public knowledge that United States of America (USA) is a leading figure in the promotion of this biotech practice. One will have to wonder if USA is unqualified to be part of Victoria’s geographical characterization of western nations!

However, this is not to absorb the possibility that such scientific cultivation will not be totally free from bad effect, but rather to observe that there is much ignorance (than knowledge) about the GMOs: the varieties for classification that will properly unveil the extremely hazardous ones, the actual quantification of its hazard, and what have you. It is against this backdrop that I decided to do some ‘clicking’ (apologies to Pius Adesanmi), and contact a friend who is a biotechnologist. 

These taken steps led me to some findings, and the piece peened by my friend with others found on the internet resulted in three phases of treatises that I will be publishing on my blog about GMOs. The first will be its defence, the second, a case against it, and the third, the WTO’s case and politics of GMO. I have endeavoured to ensure that each of these treatises presents a scintillating representation of ideas about each of the subject matter, at least for the purpose of education so as to power a knowledge-based decision of the side each and every one of us finally pitch our tent with.

Read: In Defense of GMOs, by AbdulKareem Musa Alaba