INGHAM REBUTTAL PDF

INGHAM REBUTTAL PDF

The distancing of critical analysis from autobiographical sleuthing reaches its furthest extent in Patricia Ingham’s rebuttal of Michael Slater’s Dickens and Women. Genetically Engineered Klebsiella plan- ticola: A Threat to Terrestrial Plant Life? (accessed November Under the direction of his academic advisor, Elaine Ingham, Holmes Because Ingham’s assertions were scientifically rebutted before the.

Author: Telrajas Gomi
Country: Moldova, Republic of
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 16 September 2014
Pages: 349
PDF File Size: 17.22 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.32 Mb
ISBN: 794-3-98474-500-7
Downloads: 26707
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Daizil

Dr Ingham apologizes to Royal Commission http: In her defense, it is impossible to check everything we hear or read we have to take some things of faith. Green Party Rebuttaal Section B c 2.

That was a fabrication by a newspaper reporter. Make your own decision about whether this engineered bacterium is something that could cause significant impacts on terrestrial systems.

When that area fills up, I move it to another area and let it sit for months, where inghaam turns into gorgeous, loose earth.

This is scientific evidence for the existence of a Klebsiella planticola bacterium in nature, and which is capable of producing alcohol. So, this microorganism was going to be released. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. It’s going to be many many years before we do. The testing that was performed by Fyfra? As a result, strain SDF20 has been enabled to produce alcohol, and it still retains the pyruvate-formate-lyase mutation.

Evidence in Rebuttal – Life Sciences Network

Dr Ingham; now, I’m not a scientist, and I’m not clear in my mind about this, but was what happened an unexpected result in the sense of a recombination of organisms producing a new harmful bacteria?

This editor as a lifelong journalist has never made any pretense about being “objective,” an almost unachievable goal when one is dealing with the complexity of the news of the day, but he has sought to make accuracy and fairness a hallmark of his work. At the time of the delivery of this evidence to the Commission, we had received no response from Dr Ingham. It is therefore highly unlikely that such a mutant bacteria would have a chance of long-term survival in natural ecosystems, let alone spread across the world.

  CIENCIA DE LOS POLIMEROS BILLMEYER PDF

Further, I have not been subject to any academic censure. I try to take the path of moderation, myself. Microbiological Reviews, While regrettable, a typographical error does not change the fact that the scientific data are published and in the scientific record.

2001 articles

These facts make any conclusions that the recombinant strain SDF20 has an unusual inhibitory effect on plant growth due debuttal alcohol formation impossible to substantiate, as the amount of wheat damage by the wild-type Klebsiella planticola was not evaluated. These are just some reasons why the fate of the engineered strain in natural conditions cannot be extrapolated from this study.

Some people knit from ingyam, others make it up as they go. The paper referenced by Dr Ingham could not be found.

The alcohol genes in SDF20 come from the bacterium Zymomonas mobilis. Rebuttal evidence In light of the seriousness of the situation, we wish to make the following points: The main conclusion presented by Dr Ingham is that a genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola bacterium, if released into the environment, has the potential to kill all terrestrial plant life on the planet.

The authors claim that this novel feature has resulted in changes in the soil microflora in their experiments, and death of wheat plants. But, Klebsiella would produce alcohol, which it normally does not do. I was very careful to say that if you extrapolate the results of the laboratory work to the field, based on the facts that most terrestrial plants cannot tolerate alcohol production in the root system, that this bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol, that this bacterium typically grows in the roots systems of all plants, then there is a clear risk if this bacterium were to be released into the natural environment.

Falkow also states p78 that genes are promiscuously transferred among the members of the Enterobactericeae by mating factors. This is a great learning tool for all of us.

Full story of the Dr Elaine Ingham controversy over Klebsiella p.

It is a fairly aggressive soil organism that lives on exudates rehuttal by the roots of every plant that grows in soil. The taxonomic breadth and ingbam of transfer has been so vast that one can think of the operational gene component of prokaryotes [i.

  CALCUL DIFERENTIAL SI INTEGRAL PDF

Glycerol can be used by the bacterium as sole carbon source. We tested it to make sure it had not lost any of the typical rebuttap organisms, and indeed, we found a very typical soil food web present in the soil.

A threat to terrestrial plant life? As a result of its deficiency it would have a selective disadvantage in a natural ecosystem. Check the line on page 73, “However, at the end of the experiment, plants in soil inoculated with with SDF20 were chlorotic and wilting, while plants in the uninoculated soil and soil with SDF15 were flowering.

Still, how do you start compost large and hot? As Lawton points out, “the problem with any organism and particularly with bacteria is that there is no surefire way to recall them once they have been released. In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not scientifically supportable.

The paper by Holmes et al has no data on competition between strain SDF20 and other bacteria in the particular environment they have chosen.

Dr Ingham given the opportunity but has not contradicted this rebuttal evidence Because of the seriousness of Dr Ingham’s assertions, and in light of the various issues raised in this rebuttal evidence, we considered that it was important igham give Dr Ingham the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies prior to the evidence being delivered to the Commission.