5
" In the rush to market, experiments have been carried out on a large scale in the natural environment, when controlled laboratory testing would have been far more effective and informative. The British Government sanctioned large-scale planting of genetically modified plants in order to test whether their pollen spread only a few meters (as expected) and to make sure that the new gene would not be spontaneously incorporated into other species of plants (ditto). It turned out that the pollen spread for miles, and the new genes could transfer without difficulty to other plants. Effects like this could, for example, create pesticide-resistant strains of weeds. By the time the experiment had revealed that the conventional wisdom was wrong, there was no way to get the pollen, or its genes, back. Simple laboratory tests – such as painting pollen onto plants directly – could have established the same facts more cheaply, without releasing anything into the environment. It was a bit like fireproofing chemical by spraying it on a city and setting the place alight, with the added twist that the ‘fire’ might spread indefinitely if, contrary to expectations, it took hold. "
― Ian Stewart
6
" Continuing to do research on genetic modification, and occasionally using successfully modified organisms for specific purposes such as the production of expensive drugs, make good sense. Helping developing countries to produce more food is a worthy aim, but it is sometimes used as an excuse for an alternative agenda, or as a convenient way to demonise opponents. There is little doubt that the technology needs better regulation: I find it bizarre that standard food safety tests are not required, on the grounds that the plants have not been changed in any significant way, but that the innovations are so great that they deserve patent protection, contrary to the long-standing view that naturally occurring objects and substances cannot be patented. Either it’s new, and needs testing like anything else, or it’s not, and should not be patentable. It is also disturbing, in an age when commercial sponsors blazon their logos across athletes’ shirts and television screens, that the biotechnology industry has fought a lengthy political campaign to prevent any mention of their product being placed on food. The reason is clear enough: to avoid any danger of a consumer boycott. But consumers are effectively being force-fed products that they may not want, and whose presence is being concealed.
Our current understanding of genetics and ecology is inadequate when it comes to the widespread use of genetically modified organisms in the natural environment or agriculture. Why take the risk of distributing the material, when the likely gains for most of us – as opposed to short-term profits for biotechnology companies – are tiny or non-existent? "
― Ian Stewart
14
" Music can be appreciated from several points of view: the listener, the performer, the composer. In mathematics there is nothing analogous to the listener; and even if there were, it would be the composer, rather than the performer, that would interest him. It is the creation of new mathematics, rather than its mundane practice, that is interesting. Mathematics is not about symbols and calculations. These are just tools of the tradequavers and crotchets and five-finger exercises. Mathematics is about ideas. In particular it is about the way that different ideas relate to each other. If certain information is known, what else must necessarily follow? The aim of mathematics is to understand such questions by stripping away the inessentials and penetrating to the core of the problem. It is not just a question of getting the right answer; more a matter of understanding why an answer is possible at all, and why it takes the form that it does. Good mathematics has an air of economy and an element of surprise. But, above all, it has significance. "
― Ian Stewart
