#I will also add that not everyone is exempt from constructive criticism

[technicallyaminecraftsimp]

I usually don’t respond to posts outside of tags, but I’ve been thinking about this exact thing lately so much. I see that reaction from Hazbin Hotel fans so much, and it’s just upsetting to see

A lot of my character designing improvements in my art happened when I was doing fanart for mcyt series, because you didn’t get a lot to work with in the first place. You pretty much had to have your own design for characters. Since then, it’s become a habit of mine to ‘redesign’ characters if I draw them, because I love adding shape language and small details or references to the rest of the story

I wish so badly that the Hazbin Hotel fanbase can understand that redesigning chatacters is not a direct attack on the show, the creator, or anyone who likes the characters. Redesigns are more of a show of love or interest in the show, if anything at all. Yes, there are some people who do it with the intent of ‘fixing’ designs because of their own opinions and criticisms. But that shouldn’t be the reaction to everyone

If someone is taking the time to not only go through the process of redesigning a character, but also doing full drawings of the designs, while also taking important character traits (like Vaggie’s history as an angel or Husk’s alcoholism, as common examples I’ve seen) and translating them into parts of the design, all that work is not done to be mean and go “look how much better I am at this, these designs suck!!!!!”

I feel like I could go on and on about this, but then this would be way too long. I’ve just had this on my mind for a bit and wanted to add on my scattered thoughts about it

The Hazbin Hotel fandom's open hostility towards redesigns is honestly very sad. I've never seen any other fandom get this bad. If someone redesigned my characters id love it. It feels flattering that someone takes the time to rework my designs to come up with their own interpretations.

[josiebelladonna]

nightmarebrigade... aka, the bitch who called me disgusting on here (her url is different on here than her ao3 name) for something i wrote (whether it was black diamonds or skeleton in the closet, i don’t know) doesn’t seem to realize how hurtful that was, just how hard that hit me under the belt, because it felt like she was attacking me rather than the piece of writing she was griping about. apparently, she never learned that it’s important to separate art from the artist, especially in the world of fic. you may not take it seriously but it’s still a means of telling a story and contributing to something greater than yourself.

“you’re disgusting :)”

yeah, and i bet you also think people who write about rape, abuse, murder, any dark/taboo subjects are disgusting, too. why not give them comments like that?

and yeah, write a smiley face after that like the petty bully you are. making me feel worthless and ashamed of myself all because i wanted to tell a fucking story.

hey, like i said yesterday: i’m not the one jamming up ao3′s tagging system and refusing to get familiar with it. i’m not the one stalking metallica’s kids and having my asshole followers see nothing wrong with that. i’m not the one getting up in arms when an older lady gives me constructive criticism and seeing it as “an attack” on you. well done. YOU are the one with the problem, not me.

you and your equally shitty friend floridak1los (good job butchering that lana song, too) can both suck each other off.

worse? way too many people are like this. way too many ON HERE are like this now. everywhere i look on tumblr right now, i see this behavior. getting overly offended when you see something dark or novel and then proceeding to attack the author or the artist. acting so deranged towards people whom you supposedly admire and then basically circle-jerking your followers whom you don’t even know and more than likely never will, either, because the united states have stopped caring about covid and any other pathogenic threat now. getting offended by a woman’s body. getting offended by someone’s art. preaching to “hate/be rude to ALL men” and treating girls as if they’re perfect.

this place is a shithole - a garbage dump has more class than tumblr in 2022. you people are soulless and careless - moreover, you don’t seem to care the damage you’re doing to yourselves. i’m not safe on here. anyone who still has half their brain isn’t safe on here. anyone who doesn’t post memes or stupid tiktok videos isn’t safe on here.

women are supposed to feel safe, especially in terms of sexuality. i do not feel safe on here, even walking amongst other women. i don’t feel safe to talk about any man i like and, really, it’s just turning me off for women. i am not building you up if you imply that i am not a real woman, i am not building you up if you don’t show it to me outside of a poorly worded post that are a dime a dozen, and i sure as holy fuck am not building you up if you preach to be rude to all men or if you actively stalk a famous man’s children. i am not doing any of that.

everyone on here is a fucking idiot, too, and i make no exemption for myself on that. i admit there’s a lot that i don’t know, and it’s no one’s right to give me hell for ignorance because we’re all ignorant at some point. if we all knew everything, we wouldn’t have questions. if we didn’t have questions, nothing would happen. but tumblr takes it to a whole new level, though.

jesus, the fact that tumblr makes ridiculous updates like banning certain words or sneakily adds a tip jar (good job screwing over anyone on here who has a patreon or ko-fi or anything like that) and everyone complains about it and then the next day you’re dead silent about it like it never happened is just... worrying to me.

honestly, i cannot think of a better time to leave. no one listening, i get personally attacked, and i’m surrounded by uncultured idiots who think they know everything. i am hated on here. i’m a villain to you people. i got no business on here anymore. i got no business being on ao3, either, or any place like that.

my erotic fic is my last hurrah and that’s it.

[leopardprintismybrown]

1.Everyone is minding their own business, but that doesn't exempt them from opinions. 2. The only reason you think it is not constructive criticism is because I am not agreeing with you. I criticized your treatment of John, and I stand by it. You have religiously chanted "John is not the man everyone thinks he is", do you do the same for Brian and Roger? There must be people who think Brian and Roger could do no wrong too. Isn't it necessary to get the message across to them too?

I think you really aren’t getting it. Since I created this blog I got asks of people that wanted to provoke just for starting drama and spread hate and I never allowed it by simply not taking the bait and replying politely.

I’ve never censored anyone, except one anon who, by the way, I was agreeing with but they were criticizing an account on a different platform and it wasn’t fair. 

I’ve never blocked anyone on this site. I reply and post every ask I get, the same thing I’m doing with you at the moment though it’s a one sided discussion aimed at calling me biased and, now that you confirmed to be the same anon of John’s retirement, insensitive.

I get anons that want to fuel me into speak ill of John and that go too far with their suppositions and I disagree with them and ask them to moderate their language. Same with others like Cameron, Sarina, etc.

So much for a biased person.

You come here, you criticize me by starting with accusing me of being biased, of despising John and you add that I never have a mean word about Roger or Brian’s faults. I explain to you why I replied the way I did regarding the last ask concerning Roger’s faults and that I will never confirm rumours as facts. The discussion could have ended with my clarification... but no! You reply by saying that you weren’t talking about rumours when you were clearly referring to the way I replied to a gossip related question. You keep saying that I have different standards for John and I provide evidence that I had the same attitude linking an ask about John and his supposed lover, encouraging you in the very first ask you sent me to read everything I said about John. Then you ignore everything I say and you basically state that I mocked you and that I hide behind my words when I admitted with no problem that the only type of person who might feel offended by what I wrote on my blog is the John stan that idealizes him because there’s not a single offence regarding him and with this explanation you get the reason why I can’t but think that you are one of them. All for nothing, because you ignore another time my reply and keep on saying that I treated John badly. But again you fail to explain why. So what kind of constructive criticism is this, when you accuse, I reply, you ignore, you accuse of a different thing, I reply and then you go back with your first accusation never argumenting your point of view and just persisting in throwing accusations with no basis? A peaceful and constructive discussion can come to a conclusion with two disagreeing opinions, but not when the other party ignores and accuses without an explanation. I’m not really offended that you don’t agree with me or that we have different opinions. I am more frustratred that you’re just here to twist my words and criticize me on the basis of what you twisted, even when I explain my good intentions. If I only cared about those who agree with me, what am I doing here wasting my time by replying thousands of words to a faceless anon that is judging me with no reason in front of my followers, instead of blocking them and tell them to fuck off as most bloggers do? 

And the cherry on top! You confirm to be the same anon that deliberately accused me of disrespecting another person’s grief without understanding the meaning and the use of my words just because you don’t know how to find evidence to criticize me. And you decide to twist my words by saying that I measure people’s display of grief and that I think that John’s reaction is wrong, proving that you haven’t understood a single word of what you read and also that you don’t know what John was going through in those years. So, thank you for offending me and basically calling me an insensitive and disrespectful person.

Not only you can’t understand a single post where I clearly say that I respect John’s (everyone’s) decision, you keep on proving that you don’t know my opinion on things and you can’t bother yourself to read more of what I shared on my blog by 

1. stating that I religiously chant that “John is not the man everyone thinks he is” while everything I did was despising the caricaturization of the Queen members, ALL OF THEM. I even got an ask about Roger on the matter. (And I think this also replies to your point 2). Isn’t it better to accept our favourite musicians for who they are, adult men, with good and bad qualities, instead of creating stereotypes and caricatures? 

2. affirming that anonimity is okay for me when I do nothing but encourage my followers to write me off anon, comdemn anon hate and state that when someone criticizes on anon has no good intentions. What am I supposed to do, tell anons that support me or say nice things to me to fuck off because they are on anon for some reason I don’t comprehend? Let’s act like adults with common sense, please.

[blog-cosmosuniverse1]

American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members The guide lists nine “key messages” the AMA wants doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. This includes stressing the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions, the importance of flu vaccines and COVID shots, and expressing confidence in vaccine development In the guide, the AMA instructs doctors on how to disinform the public using psychological and linguistic tools. This includes explicit instructions on which words to swap for other more narrative-affirming choices Word swaps include changing “hospitalization rates” to “deaths,” two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable Swapping the term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another rather egregious misdirection. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, they’re diametrically opposed to one another

The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,”1 issued by the American Medical Association (AMA) raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members.The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots?AMA Teaches Doctors How to Deceive “It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:2“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.”Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots.The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows: Express confidence in vaccine developmentStress the importance of vaccinesHighlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformationAdhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselvesGive general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shotStress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptionsHighlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injectionHighlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutionsDenounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies”AMA Concerned About Disinformation On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”3To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.” AMA Then Instructs Doctors on How to Disinform It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9.As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more

narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable!It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?

Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive.

It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?

📷

Another highly questionable word swap is to not address the nitty, gritty details of vaccine trials, such as the number of participants, and instead simply refer to these trials as having gone through “a transparent, rigorous process.”

Swapping the factual term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another outrageous misdirection. The two simply aren’t interchangeable. In fact, they’re actually diametrically opposed to one another. Standard process for vaccine development includes a long process of over a decade and a large number of steps that were either omitted or drastically shortened for the COVID shots.

Following standard process is what makes vaccine development take, on average, 10 years and often longer. Operation Warp Speed allowed vaccine makers to slap together these COVID shots in about nine months from start to finish. You cannot possibly say that the two terms describe an identical process.

The Power of Language

Other language swaps are less incredulous but still highlight the fact that the AMA wants its members to help push a very specific and one-sided narrative that makes power-grabbing overreaches and totalitarian tactics sound less bad than they actually are, and make questionable processes sound A-OK.

Language is a powerful tool with which we shape reality,4 because it shapes how we think about things. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:5

“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”

For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety.

The same goes for using “COVID protocols” in lieu of “COVID mandates, directives, controls and orders.” “Protocols” sounds like something that is standard procedure, as if the COVID measures are nothing new, whereas “mandates, controls and orders” imply that, indeed, we’re in medical fascism territory, which we are.

How to Steer, Block, Deflect and Stall Inconvenient Questions

The AMA could have instructed its members to simply stick to the facts and be honest — and in some sections, it does do that — but it doesn’t end there. Rather, the AMA provides a full page of instructions on how to steer the conversation, and how to block, deflect and stall when faced with tough questions where an honest answer might actually break the official narrative.

Here’s a sampling of these instructions. I encourage you to read through page 8 of the guide, and pay attention to these psychological tricks when listening to interviews or reading the news.

Interviewing techniques

Steer the conversation back to the narrative by saying:

“Before we leave that matter, let me add …”

Block a tough question by saying:

“That’s [proprietary, confidential etc], but what I can tell you is …”

Deflect an unwanted question by saying:

“That’s a common misperception but the reality is …”

Redirect away from an unwanted question, back to the official narrative by saying:

“I don’t have the details on that, but what I know is …”

Stall by saying:

Repeat the question asked, or acknowledge the question by saying, “I’m glad you asked …”

It’s worth noting that the AMA also stresses that: 1) Doctors are to speak for the AMA, and 2) doctors are NOT to offer their personal views. Speaking for the AMA is listed under “Your Responsibilities” when being interviewed, while not discussing personal views is listed under “Interview Don’ts.”

AMA Is Rapidly Eroding All Credibility

The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling in order to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.

Its direct instruction to not share personal views is another trust-eroding strategy. When people talk to their doctor, they want to hear what that doctor actually thinks, based on their own knowledge and experience.

They don’t expect their doctor — or a doctor appearing in an interview — to simply rehash a narrative dictated by the AMA. If we cannot trust our medical professionals to give their honest opinions and give direct answers, there’s little reason to even discuss our concerns with them, and that’s the opposite of what the AMA claims it seeks to achieve.

The AMA is concerned about the proliferation of misinformation and eroding trust, yet it’s telling its members to keep their professional views to themselves and lie about COVID deaths. With this guidance document, the AMA is essentially implicating itself as a source and instigator of medical misinformation that ultimately might injure patients.

In a Stew Peters Show interview (see top of this article), Dr. Bryan Ardis criticized the AMA guidance document, pointing out that while the AMA claims it put out the guidance to prevent political ideologies from dictating medicine, it is actually proving that the AMA itself is deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.

The AMA wants its members to act as propagandists for a particular narrative — using “politically correct language” — rather than sharing information and acting in accordance with their own conscience and professional insight. As noted by Peters:

“If a doctor’s just going to repeat what the AMA tells them, why have doctors at all? You can get plenty of starving propagandists at any liberal college, but instead we want to turn our medical professionals into ideological zombies with stethoscopes.”

[rightbiotech]

Editing gene editing out of the definition of genetic engineering

The Royal Society kickstarted the national conversation on the use of gene editing. It says that it is “important that New Zealand develop its own view”, but it is using language that better constructs its desired outcome: that “it’s time for an overhaul of the regulations”.

In New Zealand, the European Union and Australia, gene/genome editing techniques are processes that trigger regulations of the products. In all these jurisdictions industry and some public sector scientists are campaigning to either remove this trigger or exempt some processes. The campaign has worked in Australia to deregulate some, but far from all, gene editing processes.

I’ve written before about the different forms of regulation. In this article, I’m going to focus on the push to define genome editing as out of scope of our Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, the legislation that is specific to evaluating the living things we make using gene technology. The arguments being used in New Zealand are common everywhere. One whopper I’ll address is that genome editing techniques are not in vitro techniques, those that define genetic engineering.

Manipulation of the in vivo/in vitro distinction that qualifies some techniques for regulation is catching out vulnerable science journalists, leading to little critical coverage of the argument on regulation. Here is an example from New Zealand media:

As part of a series on gene editing, The Royal Society Te Apārangi’s Gene Editing Panel has produced a paper looking at whether New Zealand’s regulatory framework is still fit for purpose…To be genetically modified the genes need to have been modified or derived from something made “in vitro” – a laboratory vessel. Science has advanced to the point where CRISPR can be applied in living cells, not in a laboratory vessel. The current definition in the main piece of legislation created to regulate gene technology doesn’t reflect where science is at. Other legislation could also come into play when making decisions around the release of a genetically-edited organism, but because much of the legislation was written before the science, it’s a bit like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

CRISPR in the above quote is shorthand for one site-directed gene/genome editing technique using a guide RNA (CRISPR) and a nuclease (Cas9). It doesn’t matter that the reporter only mentions this special case because her argument applies to all site-directed techniques including ZFN, TALENs and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis.

There are so many things wrong in this short text that it is hard to know where to start to unravel it. I’ll start with the biggest and most misleading statement: “Science has advanced to the point where CRISPR can be applied in living cells, not in a laboratory vessel.” This little gem is also tripping up many of my colleagues and regulators.

In vivo The reason that it is important is that the use of ‘in vitro techniques’ is a key trigger for regulation in countries with “process-based” regulations. The term is not identical in all jurisdictions but it is the touchstone in New Zealand’s legislation. A High Court decision in 2014 confirmed that it was. It may seem surprising at first, but the same Court rejected the notion that modifying genes or other genetic material in vivo - within the cell – did not make them in vitro techniques.

That might sound strange at first, but the Court had solid grounds for doing so. If we were to say that gene modifying techniques must only modify genes or other genetic material in vitro, there would be no genetically modified organisms. This is because all the techniques used since the late 1970s have an in vivo stage where the genes or genetic material of a living organism are modified (see Figure). To deny that genetically modified organisms exist would be obvious nonsense and out of step with intellectual property rights law and the global consensus expressed through many international agreements from Codex Alimentarius through TRIPS on to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The poster-child technique of genetic engineering is to insert a recombinant DNA molecule into a living cell (Figure). Alone in a test tube, a recombinant DNA molecule is neither an organism nor is it alive or able to reproduce. Putting it into a living cell is a different matter. The recombinant DNA molecule modifies the genetic material by integration into or recombination with another DNA molecule (modifying genes) or by self-directed replication (modifying genetic material). This all happens in vivo.

I’ve adapted a nice cartoon made by Rebecca Mackelprang to illustrate the steps that techniques which everyone agrees are genetic engineering have in common with the steps of the techniques called genome editing (Figure). (Note, that was not Dr Mackelprang’s use of the cartoon.) When you align the procedures you see pretty much the same use of in vitro techniques too. The change in the living cell in all cases is due to enzyme-mediated reactions that result in a change to genes or other genetic material. The ingredients are different, as they would be for a chocolate or vanilla cake, but both are cakes after baking. The exception may be chemical and radiation mutagenesis which are defined as creating genetically modified organisms (but usually exempted from regulations).

Figure of a common depiction of genetic engineering and genome editing techniques, adapted to show the respective in vitro (highlighted in red) and in vivo stages resulting in modified genes or other genetic material. Modified from https://theconversation.com/organic-farming-with-gene-editing-an-oxymoron-or-a-tool-for-sustainable-agriculture-101585. Rebecca Mackelprang, CC BY-SA

Genetic material The term ‘genetic material’ used in legislation may be contributing to the misunderstandings of place – either in vivo or vitro - where genes or other genetic material are modified. For a large proportion of my molecular biology trained colleagues, genetic material means essentially the same thing as genes, and genes for them mean DNA. In the phrase ‘genes or other genetic material’ used in the HSNO Act, I imagine that they think that the genetic material is both DNA and RNA. However, the legislation written as ‘genes or other genetic material’ was not as trivial in meaning as “DNA or RNA”.

Beginning with the 22nd Session of the Conference of FAO (held in 1983) it was decided that the “‘base collection of plant genetic resources’ [genetic resources are defined as genetic material with value] means a collection of seed stock or vegetative propagating material (ranging from tissue cultures to whole plants)…” (emphasis added to UNFAO 1983). Therefore, and for some considerable time1,  genetic material has been a term to mean organisms, seeds, zygotes and cuttings, not just DNA or chromosomes. Treatments that modify organisms, seeds, zygotes and cuttings using in vitro techniques create genetically modified organisms. All of these treatments have at least a final in vivo step.

The reactions that modify genes or other genetic material using older techniques also happen in vivo but rely on critical in vitro steps including making the mutagen (e.g. a recombinant DNA molecule) and penetrating a living cell to cause the mutagen to change genes or other genetic material. The EU directives describe it similarly as “the formation of new combinations of genetic material by the insertion of nucleic acid molecules produced by whatever means outside an organism, into any virus, bacterial plasmid or other vector system and their incorporation into a host organism in which they do not naturally occur but in which they are capable of continued propagation.” You see they carefully separate the “nucleic acid molecules” from the “genetic material”; only the latter is modified.

This is the same for all the newer editing methods too. They require penetrating a living cell with the mutagen (e.g. an editing protein or its mRNA). Recombinant DNA molecules (“nucleic acid molecules”) are made using in vitro techniques, but so are the editing proteins and in the case of CRISPR/Cas9, also the guide RNA (a nucleic acid molecule). 

Journalist beware! Beware science journalists when you are told that genome editing is “new” and “different” from genetic engineering. Editing is not new because the ability to use site-directed techniques in vivo predates the discovery of the current editing proteins such as ZFNs, TALENs and Cas9 (of CRISPR/Cas9). Site-directed techniques such as oligo-nucleotide mutagenesis were being used as early as the 1980s in some organisms. What is different now is that the editing proteins work in just about all organisms and they are in some cases even more efficient and flexible than the older techniques. However, it is misleading to say that the laws in Australia, the European Union and New Zealand, among many other countries, were written when such techniques were not even imagined. They were written well after such techniques were in use (for review see Heinemann 2015).

The conversations happening in many countries simultaneously around the world on regulating genome editing has disproportionately privileged certain voices that have forgotten the roots of their science. I would also fail the test as a bona fide science historian! Therefore, my purpose here is not a history lesson but to add another dimension to the conversation that I don’t see from our scientific organisations such as the Royal Society. Sadly, I’ve also not seen much effort from our New Zealand science media to challenge the scientific institutions’ roles in this conversation.

1(A) “Referring to genetic material as “any material of plant origin, including reproductive and vegetative propagating material, containing functional units of heredity” has a long tradition in management of GRFA [genetic resources for food and agriculture], and is consistent with classical applied genetics because the predominant tool is breeding. The agricultural genetics literature from the 1940s explicitly equated ‘genetic material’ with that which could recreate the plant (seeds or propagules) (Weiss, 1943)” (Heinemann et al. 2018). (B) “(a) ‘plant genetic resources’ means the reproductive or vegetative propagating material of the following categories of plants: • (i) cultivated varieties (cultivars) in current use and newly developed varieties; (ii) obsolete cultivars; (iii) primitive cultivars (land races); (iv) wild and weed species, near relatives of cultivated varieties; (v) special genetic stocks (including elite and current breeders' lines and mutants);” (UNFAO 1983). (C) “Genetic resources (GRs) refer to genetic material of actual or potential value. Genetic material is any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity. Examples include material of plant, animal, or microbial origin, such as medicinal plants, agricultural crops and animal breeds” (emphasis added). Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/genetic/

References

Heinemann, J.A. 2015. Expert scientific opinion on the status of certain new techniques of genetic modification under Directive 2001/18/EC. Commissioned by Greenpeace International.

Heinemann, J.A.; Coray, D.S.; Thaler, D.S. Exploratory fact-finding scoping study on “Digital Sequence Information” on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Background Study Paper NO. 68. Background Study Papers: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; 2018. 

UNFAO. Resolution 8/83 International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The Conference; 1983. 

[dailyjaviermunoz]

For the most part I keep things cut and dry when it comes to running this blog, but now and then things come up and I wonder whether or not it’s my place to add in my two cents. I’ve largely kept personal commentary at a minimum here--I think--and do you all even want to hear the scribbles in my brain? is that my place/my responsibility here on this niche slice of the ‘net? Hardly, but this isn’t the first time Javi’s tag has gone/is about to go rife with the whispers of d i s c o u r s e, that dreaded word, so my thoughts, in brief (actually!):

Disclaimer: this is hardly exhaustive/sourced/etc.... just a pretty consistent feeling I have in regards to this ^^^ recurring issue. A feeling; I don’t have tidy answers and this all feeds into a larger conversation that I’m not having here right now.

I’ve followed Javi on Twitter since In the Heights--we’ve chatted often enough there and met in person more than once, so we’re acquainted and chummy, but I’m not going to pretend like we’re bosom buddies. That said, from our interactions, I know where I stand.  

Do I think he wakes up in the morning thinking ‘Hmmmmmm, how should I put people in their place on Twitter today?’ No. 

Do I think he’s a “d*ck to his fans”, “gets off on bullying teenagers”, and other similar ideas I’ve seen tossed around? Disagree.

Do I think he has a strong personality (ugh, that’s such an overused/cop-out of a term, but I can’t think of anything better at the moment) and sense of self that can be oil on a fire when it comes to Twitter? Something like that.

His statement that age doesn’t exempt you from retaliation--I don’t agree with that. I also don’t spend my day going through all of his @s, so which responses are trolls and which ones are sincere I don’t have the stats on. Are there aspects of his online presence I think could be finessed, especially now that there are that many more eyes on it? Sure: like tone not translating online, phrasing that exacerbates the goading reactions.  

Twitter is not conducive to calm, critical thought. People tweet their snap reactions and more often than not those feelings spiral. The hot takes and disregard of context are so easy and I am tired. Big ol’ feedback loop of [yelling noises].

Is it my place to give all parties a primer on how to have productive Twitter relationships, at all age levels? I’m Ms. Avoid-Conflict-at-All-Costs, so who am I to dictate how someone should balance standing up for their convictions, addressing constructive criticism, and whether or not they should be expending energy on other someones who are just poking with a sharp stick for a reaction.

And, ya know, Javi’s an adult. He’s been wrong before--he apologized and learned from it. If he misspeaks and people approach him from a place of reason and cool heads I trust that he will be mindful of what they have to say.

It’s part of a larger conversation that we keep talking about because no one has a neat answer for it yet! The onus is on all parties to learn, but??? How. I’d love if we all stepped back from our screens and took a deep breath sometimes, but I am just one person and Twitter wouldn’t be in business if everyone did that, so IDK. 

[mikemortgage]

Free trade in the age of Trump: Can Canada save the crumbling WTO?

Canada will step back into a familiar role this week when it kick starts a 13-nation mission in Ottawa to help bridge the bitter impasse threatening to sink the beleaguered World Trade Organization.

In the unwieldy 164-member club of the WTO, where solutions to larger problems often begin life in smaller, informal gatherings, Canada has frequently played the part of an influential middle power pushing for compromise.

The question now, given U.S. President Donald Trump’s clear contempt for the central organ of the world’s multilateral trading system, is how effective the approach will be this time around.

Barely a third of Canadians happy with new North American trade deal, poll suggests

This is next-level geopolitics’: USMCA China trade clause will test how willing Canada is to tempt fate with U.S.

Trump extracted another major concession on Canadian dairy: Restrictions on our skim milk exports

The slow moving animal of the WTO is facing an urgent crisis as the United States continues to block the appointment of judges to its appellate body — or top court — an action that could leave it powerless by late next year.

And the early Canadian suggestions for reform — outlined in a discussion paper provided ahead of this week’s meetings — have already been criticized by Dennis Shea, the U.S. Ambassador to the WTO, for not taking a tough enough stand.

“I think the whole tenor of the paper is more trying to be a middle road kind of approach, like let’s have more discussions, let’s start a discussion,” Shea said during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies earlier this month. “I think we’re beyond that point. Yes, discussion is important, dialogue is important, but we need to get some actions in place.”

Canada’s Minister for International Trade Diversification Jim Carr, who will host the Ottawa meetings, remains undeterred. Any reform to the complex international organization will ultimately require broad consensus that is best accomplished “incrementally, but also with purpose,” he said in an interview.

“It’s not just talking,” he said. “There has to be a sense of movement. There has to be a sense that we’ve got to do better than we have done. There’s lots of purpose and I’m very hopeful it will take us to a place further along that path than we are now.”

The World Trade Organization headquarters in Geneva.

The meetings in Ottawa starting Wednesday will include senior ministers from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Union, Japan, Kenya, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland.

Crucially, they will not include China or the United States, a decision Carr has said is part of a strategy to first build consensus among countries that believe in a rules-based trading system before moving out to bring others on board.

Present or not, the influence of the world’s two largest economies — currently locked in a trade war in which tariffs on US$360 billion in goods have been exchanged — will undoubtedly loom large over the talks.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to pull out of the WTO, accusing it of treating the United States harshly while failing to address unfair trade practices by China, including its alleged use of industrial subsidies, its policies around state-owned enterprises and its requirements that companies hand over technology in exchange for market access.

With the seven-member appellate body now down to three judges — the minimum required to hear WTO cases — continued American efforts to block appointments could soon render it paralyzed.

That would leave countries without a mechanism to address trade disputes, paving the way for a proliferation of bilateral deals, the application of more tariffs and an overall breakdown of the system, trade experts warn.

“You’ve got a bully of a Trump administration, you’ve got China and you’ve got a system that is collapsing and has actually become irrelevant,” said Gregory Shaffer, director of the center on globalization, law and society at the University of California, Irvine.

“The Trump administration is threatening tariffs and imposing tariffs, all of it in violation of WTO rules. So the system only exists in name right now and the question is how to make it effective at all.”

Canada’s ideas for reform, described in the discussion paper, focus on three main issues. The first calls for improving the monitoring function of the WTO, under which members are required to notify the organization of how they are applying its rules and give other countries the opportunity to object. Another identifies the need to update aging trade rules and the framework for deciding what sorts of obligations developing countries are exempted from.

The most contentious point tackled, give U.S. frustrations, is how to strengthen and safeguard the WTO’s dispute settlement system. Canada’s suggestions include streamlining proceedings, excluding some issues from adjudication and using mediation in certain cases.

Solving the impasse over the appointment of appellate body members — an issue that “threatens to bring the whole dispute settlement system to a halt” according to the paper — will mean addressing concerns that its rulings have interpreted the rules in a way that has added to the obligations of members, it states.

Canada’s blueprint for change “addresses everything the U.S. wants vis a vis China on substantive rules and is even open to curtailing the power of the appellate body,” said Shaffer of UC Irvine.

“I think Canada is operating in the shadow of power. It is trying to position itself in a neutral, principled way here but of course in doing that it’s going to address the U.S. concerns quite seriously because if you argue the U.S. is playing in bad faith you’re not going to get anywhere. To make it effective you’ve got to address the U.S. position, you’ve got to play the broker and that’s what Canada is trying to do.”

Ottawa isn’t the only force trying to organize a rewrite of the WTO’s complex rulebook for global trade. The EU issued a separate blueprint for reform in September. Like Canada’s submission, it calls for solving some disputes through “plurilateral discussions” involving smaller groups of interested players rather than by seeking unanimous approval of all member states. The U.S. has also engaged with the EU and Japan to develop new rules and methods of enforcement.

A key difference among the proposals comes back to the Canadian approach, which stands in contrast to the top-down efforts of the Trump administration, says Robert Wolfe, professor emeritus at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston.

“The Americans want to say we’ve got a good idea and we’re going to use our weight to get everyone to do it,” he said. “Well, Canada’s not big enough to say ‘we have the solution, do it’ but that wouldn’t be our way anyway and I don’t think that would work. China isn’t going to change how it governs state-owned enterprises because you tell them to. It’s going to do it by working with you and coming to the conclusion that the way they manage state-owned enterprises isn’t working for them and is causing problems for other people.”

The more the dispute between the U.S. and China intensifies, the harder it could become to achieve a compromise on key issues. That adds to the urgency of the situation and also makes excluding the two superpowers from this week’s talks a reasonable decision, said Simon Lester, a trade policy analyst at Washington’s Cato Institute.

“When you have these big powers going at each other like the U.S. and China are, I think its reasonable to think well, you’re not going to get to a solution with them in the room,” Lester said. “It’s a perfectly reasonable and sensible approach to try and do it this way. Whether it has a chance for success, I don’t know. It’s certainly worth considering and I don’t have any other great proposals for what to do about the current situation.”

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands during a joint statement in Beijing, China.

Shea has credited the “disruptively constructive leadership” of the U.S. for prompting a renewed interest in WTO reform that many countries acknowledge is necessary. The WTO and its post-war predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) are credited with lowering tariffs and increasing global trade volumes — a dynamic economists credit with reducing poverty and lifting living standards. However, in recent decades, the pace of liberalization has slowed and failed to address newer areas of trade including services.

“If you look at the WTO after 1995, not a whole lot got done” said Lester. “Throw Trump into the mix and it all looks a lot more chaotic and confrontational but it was already really difficult. We’d done all the easy liberalization and what we were then asking was to do the hard stuff and nobody wants to do the hard stuff.”

But part of the challenge in charting a path for reform is determining exactly what changes the U.S. wants, he added. Despite deriding various aspects of the WTO, he said, the U.S. has put forward few concrete proposals for how they should be overhauled.

“Arguably it’s just a negotiating strategy where they make everybody so concerned that they’ll be willing to give the U.S. everyone what they want. Maybe you can look to the NAFTA experience as a guide. The changes to NAFTA weren’t earth shattering. Maybe we’ll go in the same direction at the WTO but it’s not clear how it’s going to play out.”

• Email: npowell@nationalpost.com | Twitter: Naomi_Powell

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2AoUdxf via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage