Will the Bayer-Monsanto deal submerge the anti-GMO mindset?

Yes, the word is out and deal is inked. Bayer has clinched a $66 Billion takeover deal of Monsanto. Two big names, becoming one big(ger) name. The tectonic plates in the AgroBiotech industry are rattling big time - Dow and Dupont merger involving $130 billion, ChemChina acquiring Syngenta for $43 billion. Completion of these merger would leave these three companies with more than 75 percent of the global market i.e. US, Germany and China.

Image source: Wikipedia - Traditional farming with oxen in India.

Notwithstanding the impending political and consumer scrutiny, these moves are certainly and steadily going a long way in addressing and controlling world food markets. While China will have the powerhouse of Syngenta's plant-genomics R&D (and hence less outside control), India would be laying itself open to the grace of Bayer (instead of Bayer and Monsanto).

So what does this have to do with 'submerging the GMO mindset'? I am not a finance or a market geek, but more of a science (and it's effects) point of view, person. To us all, till now, blaming GMO meant blaming ... well... Monsanto. You always thought that evils of GMO meant Monsanto right! The name became synonymous with all things bad in plant science besides their monopolistic business practices (not that they were, or, are alone out there). Re-branding wouldn't have helped either 'cos it would be the same issue of GMO once again. On the other hand Bayer, as a brand name , encompasses a wider variety businesses than just GMOs. It also has it's own brand identity. So, looking at it from that angle, there may not have seen a better way out than this. Same goes for, probably, Syngenta-ChinaChem.

Meanwhile this deal also apparently throws doubts over the GMO revolution and the dominance of genetically modified crops - quite counter-intuitive sounding. According to this article farmers are apparently reconsidering the use of biotech seeds as it becomes harder to justify their prices amid the measly returns of the current farm economy. Hence a question arises if such a deal like Bayer-Monsanto or ChinaChem-Syngenta is also an attempt to effectively address the rising costs of Biotech R&D. What I see gradually happening is a shift in this anti-GMO mindset by internalizing such GMO entities it under bigger brand names doing other things like crop protection and agrochemicals. This buy-over will certainly give Bayer the next tag of the 'GMO bad boy' BUT only for a short while. Public memory is short lived you see. So, for now, all of you #BlameMonsanto guys have to rethink your next favorite whipping boy.

Leukemia Survival Curve - Estimates

I have presented below a simple interactive spreadsheet giving a brief outlook of the life expectancy upon diagnosis of the type of leukemias listed below. The list will keep changing as more types will be added. This feature best accessed from desktops and may not work well in mobile phones or devices.



NOTE: The information presented below are projected values based on SEER Survival Data from the SEER Database - http://seer.cancer.gov/ . Values and results provided are for information purposes only. Actual results may vary based on health of individual like ECOG score, success of the proposed treatment in clinical trials, besides other  factors. No responsibility is claimed whatsoever.  

natarajanganesan gmail

‘What should define a well meaning opposition’

Bedlam in a Parliament

What is it with the discussions in the parliament across the world? I just saw a video of bedlam and chaos in a country’s parliament. Next I see few more more trailers posted below from other countries and the scene is no better or worse. The comments below the video are even more revealing. Nearly every user from every region and place has the SAME old thing to say - how even their place is no better, just the dresses and places are different. Instead of going into the usual blame game and ‘how all politicians should be bundled up and thrown out’ I want to ask something different - something more 'theoretical' and that requires deeper introspection.

The question is simple, 'What should define a well meaning opposition'?

In other words what are the policies where parties could differ, and what are those issues on which there should be no argument or chest thumping i.e. they are a given.

Before reaching out for answers, I want you all to consider a couple of things. There is an inherent paradox (or dichotomy, if you will) in asking such a question YET so relevant and crucial in defining of a functioning house. This is under the assumption that all members are conscientious on both sides of the table (hence the word 'theoretical' :) ).

I am bringing this issue because, today I find many a party (be it anywhere) at cross-roads with the system that sustains it. Someone chest beats about patriotism as if it were their birthright while someone assumes they are indeed the people to think of equality of existence for all. Things are so bad that yet another party claims it right to being 'clean' and working for the people. All these things should NOT be defining the basis of a party formation but should be common across the board.

I could rattle on BUT what do you think?

Tag-cloud your professional summary, not your resume!

They say ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’. I’d go a step further and say that ‘a picture of words (effectively designed) is worth a thousand times more’. That brings me to the topic of using tag-clouds as a supplement/complement to your professional summary.

Wikipedia defines as a tag cloud as follows - A tag cloud (word cloud, or weighted list in visual design) is a visual representation of text data, typically used to depict keyword metadata (tags) on websites, or to visualize free form text. Below is an example of what I talking about.

For those who are already aware of this concept, it must have struck you at some point of time as to why it has not made its way into resumes. For now it looks a bit jazzy to see them in your CVs or resumes but it’s worth noting their advantages when you are looking at compressing content effectively where space is a premium.

Advantages
When used and placed appropriately in resumes, tag-clouds can greatly enhance the content. What is referred to as keywords (a table) in resume can be effectively replaced by tag-clouds. Resume-builders could effectively build some acceptable templates

Disadvantages
The keyword here is effective crafting of the summary. You don’t want the picture to reflect that are mostly job requirements as opposed to crucial skill-sets you bring to the table. There are a couple of videos out on the internet that give you examples of this.

What you can do …
If you use one of those online tag cloud generators here are a couple of things you can do

1. Give weightage to your own words – That is, if you can really visualize how you see the words. Since these programs often operate based on the number of times the word is used, you can literally create a garbled text of these words repeated as many times as you wish (for each word). I have actually seen it to work :) 
2. Create an effectively designed professional summary – In other words if you have taken pains to create a well-crafted professional summary, you may as well use that and fine tune it a bit. It is here that a well composed summary of your in your #LinkedIn #Profile might actually be of help. Just copy that into your program and watch the results. Play around a bit with the fonts and presentation. You might actually like it!

A final note

There are many online free tag cloud generators. Wordle is by far the popular one but they are getting fancier (fonts, color, presentation etc.).  Tagul allows you play around with shapes (even your own photo upload). I guess it will only be a matter of time before it will become a norm to see it in resumes.

In fact, one of the best places where it can be used effectively is the back of business cards. Imagine every professional business card having this in fancy ways. Or imagine in a Harry Potter style, you can just click on the email in the card and send a video message. Quite fancy eh! My coffee just got spiked again :) 

Do asymptotic behavior of fatty acid breakdown efficiencies drive their differential mobilization in white adipose tissues?

Following is a simple calculator to compute the net ATPs and Oxygen consumed and the net P:O ratio assumed, during the breakdown of an even chain fatty acid by ß-oxidation. Just enter the number of carbon atoms corresponding to the even chain fatty acid and the number of double bonds in the same.

Note: The cursor won't blink, just click the cell/s where you wish to input the values (for 'n' and 'x'). Further, the equation and the values for an odd chain fatty acid vary (in the constants) and merit a separate discussion.
                                       

When you compute the values for all fatty acids in a table; as a function of chain length and double bonds and plot them in a graph, you will see a clear asymptotic pattern.

A note on the value of P:O ratios for NADH2 and FADH2 - The current estimates assume a yield of 3 ATPs and 2 ATPs respectively. When revised estimates (Hinkle and Yu) of 2.5 and 1.5 and taken into account, the only change in the equation (for the fatty acid P:O) is that of the constants. Otherwise, one would observe the same asymptotic patterns.

Efficiencies of fatty acid breakdown for energy can be represented by equation that resembles a rectangular hyperbola. This equation possibly governs the selective mobilization and distribution of the different types of fatty acids in white adipose tissues.

The following document shows the derivation of the equation (for even chain and odd chain fatty acids) and the general equation to show that it is a rectangular hyperbola ...

Is ‪' # ' and social media changing the dynamics of ‪customer service?

Is it goodbyes to the old method of toll-free calling for customer service (and being placed on the hold-music)?
Image credit: Creative adaption by Natarajan Ganesan

For the uninitiated, "A hashtag is a type of label or metadata tag used on social ...". That is how the definition goes when you search the internet; and it gets even more geeky and confusing.

In plain-speak, its just a way where you use hashtags - literally, the symbol # on your keyboard - followed immediately by the word you wish to draw attention to. Before I get distracted into the nuances of hashtags, let me quickly get down to the topic i.e. how the use of the same is possibly changing the landscape of customer relations from big companies.

Its just that I have been seeing that from my recent experiences ... One was with a travel website I booked with, and the other was an airline. Both gave me a really hard time. There were sudden itinerary change/s (on their part), lost baggage/s and what not! Instead of the routine #toll-free call that we all are accustomed to; I happened to #hashtag them on their social media page, followed by a crisp one-liner as to why I am not happy with them, and the specific trouble I am facing.

The responses were almost instantaneous followed by a routine 1-1 response - via social media, of course. But at least there was a purposeful 1-1 interaction with the team. I also did the usual phone method in-tandem, and we all know how it goes (mostly the reason why I chose the 'music logo' in my image, and how they are possibly fading in importance). All of this however, does not speak for, in anyway, if the customer issue is handled to your satisfaction; it is another point altogether.

What got me thinking was, if this was the trend being set in customer relations by big companies. The way I got the responses looked as if the company had devoted a main chunk of their customer relation efforts on the social media accounts as opposed to the regular toll-free call approach. After all, this means less hands behind the phone, right! Maybe! Or is it that the marketing and customer relations all around are beginning to realize the virality of the negative experience/s by customers in their trusted circles?

Whatever it is, the landscape of customer-relations certainly is being defined by their presence in social media. A casual internet search reveals this. Customer service using Social Media accounts may not be far into the game but their logistics might certainly be a tempting consideration (maybe worth a discussion for an #HBR write-up).

Regardless, certain basic rules of communication do exist -

• You cannot, of course, go on your own baseless/emotional tirade.
• Hashtags with #CompanyNameSucks OR #CompanyServiceIndifferent is OK, so long it is followed by a specific message justifying it e.g. my cable services are still not up etc. 
• Following up with a good review or a #ThanksCompanyName may not be a bad idea (if your issue is settled, of course).

What are your experience/s. Feel free to chip in ...

The genetics and politics of genetically modified foods: Has science been put on the chopping block?

European commission’s decision to ban genetically modified foods

            
            Few years back, the European Commission allowed its member states to decide on the decision to ban genetically modified (GM) foods. This decision was widely seen as EC’s ambivalent stance on the acceptance of GM foods, and allowing politics to overcome science and ground realities of mass food consumption and demand. This has been also widely seen as a trade dominance issue by the US based big Plant Biotech companies (like Monsanto, Inc.) over the European Union. Mainstream media and press have found it convenient to bash GMOs. Are genetically modified foods harmful? In the wake of this continuing dispute and some recent decisions by the EC to allow the expiration of the ‘reasonable period of time’ (RPT) of their compliance with the WTO rulings in the EC-Biotech dispute, the following article tries to look at the genetics and politics behind the GM foods; and some lessons that need to reckoned with while dealing with the issues of GM foods.     

Pertinent facts about GM foods…

The harm from genetically modified foods is not as much as the harm resulting from the economics of food trade and the incomplete dissemination of relevant data to farmers and general public. The issue arises when it comes to protecting and harnessing the perceived profits, simply because of the economies of scale involved.

However, countries showing resistance to GM foods have to realize a few facts –
1. There is no such thing as harmless or harmful GM foods. Caution often needs to be taken in cultivating practices e.g. greater requirement of water or nutrients.
2. Even simple plant breeding techniques involve genetic modifications. This is how better crops have been created in the past.
3. GM foods are inevitable if one has to address the growing food needs in the world.

Varieties of Corncobs - Image source: Wikiepdia

There are few kinds of GM foods – 1) Those that give increased yield 2) Those that are disease resistant. 3) Those that vary in color, shape, taste etc. The biological effects and the cultivating requirements will vary in each case. In this regard it is very pertinent to know that the practice of selective breeding to get better crops has existed long before genes and genetics were discovered. It is just that the issue has become more accentuated after the advent of modern biotech companies that have vied to capture the world market, often at the cost spreading relevant facts and/or adopting best practices in their science R&D.

Some long-term approaches

One needs to develop and craft a sound non-market strategy that addresses the concerns of the farmers and general public, before the negative trend spreads in Europe. While doing so, it must also drive home some mentioned below:

1)      GM foods are the future given the current population trends. If it is not a Monsanto or a Cargill or a Syngenta, there will always be someone else. When it comes to feeding more mouths and aiming for a hunger-free world, you either make better crops OR change your staple food. Even then, GM foods will eventually become inevitable when it comes to mass production of this new staple food. Hence, the problem lies in the incorrect planning and implementing the economies of the trade. In other words this also means the overbearing of the big multinationals who start influencing the most basic needs of our life – food. In their rush and excitement to harness their mass ‘streamlining’ capabilities (to maximize profits), it is the science that often falls on the chopping block. The R&D is purely geared to quickly churn out results that seldom have open standards of safety testing or whose current standards are not fully whetted out. A typical example is a case where a new crop variety has been generated that vastly improves crop performance (either in terms of yield or disease resistance). However, it nutritive and cultivation requirements largely go untested or the nutritive properties of the crop undergo only a convenient rigor. In other words, the new crop could fulfill the basic purpose i.e increasing disease resistance but not necessarily the human capacity to retain the same capacity to assimilate its nutrients. Any different variations of this scenario can be played out. This not only means developing comprehensive standards to pass the human consumption tests but also re-evaluating the long-term strategies to locate geo-specific markets to target its variety of products. This in turn means creating an international consortium to create and maintain a set of core online-networked databases/knowledgebases that contain strategic information about crops for human consumption. Information contained therein should include, but not limited to, documented human effects of crop consumption, changing biogeochemical information on arable lands across the globe, etc. Such a venture can and should also be taken privately by the R&D of these big Plant Biotech companies and create a highly curated and researched database of farmland characteristics across the world e.g. soil type, precipitation pattern, and affordability to purchase new products. This will greatly help to selectively targeting new crop varieties/biotech products to those farmers and countries whose growing fields and resources can afford the new technology. This will also remove the necessity of aggressive marketing strategies that are often insensitive to the local needs of the farmers, e.g. its recent history in precipitating farmer’s suicides in India (arising out of bad pricing, huge debts incurred and the negative effects on field). 

2)      There is no single statement to describe GM foods as harmful or harmless. Creating a new variety with increased yield is all about telling the plant to make a product it always knew (except on a larger scale). However, creating a disease resistant plant means that it has a new injected gene to encounter a disease that it never knew how to deal with. This means a lot of changes in its metabolism. In simple words, every act of creating a GM crop is case dependant and it requires more than a Codex Alimentarius to set the ‘overarching principles on the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology”. Quite often, negative press for a product (and the company) results from the lack of an independent information source that disseminates information on each GM agro product released in the market. One may well consider setting up an independent non-profit body that would assess the quality of every newly developed agro-product and disseminate this information through highly visible medium e.g. internet and electronic media. This should clearly include advice to the farmers (first level consumers) on the ideal kinds of soils and land suited to grow its new GM products.

A cornfield in Liechtenstein. Image source: Wikipedia

3)      A simple act of creating better strains through age-old practices of selective breeding is also a GM crop and it is a well-established practice across all countries. This is how crops have evolved through ages. Just holding a test tube and inserting gene does not make it a GM food/crop. In fact, successful adaptation to environment requires ‘evolution’ to occur and this means being involved in the process of attaining a better genetic make-up. Does modern-day science have the wherewithal to claim complete mastery over this – NO. But will it ever reach that state – DEPENDS on how we are prepared to define it. Till then it always pays to reconcile to the fact that genetic modification of foods is more of a necessary evil until one comes up with a more economically viable concept of feeding the world.

Some short term steps…

1)      Given that GM foods are going to be around for a while, maybe longer, countries all over need to realize how they could also make their own varieties and command their own market. The big plant biotech could also pay a role by promoting research in these countries and let them be a part of the intellectual property rights arising out of such discoveries. It is useful in this regard to understand the repercussions of the IP dispute in regard to the ‘Neem’, ‘Turmeric’ and ‘Basmati’ case that made India realize the importance of protecting its own crop varieties and consider looking more favorably at complying with the TRIPS (Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). By showing the risk of losing its native medicine to business interests outside, India could realize the potential of protecting and upholding its biodiversity. Going along similar lines, European member states like France can be encouraged to create their own business interests in making GM foods. For example, promote local farmers to come with their own new varieties that have their unique market, and allow them to create their own brand entities. This could also allow them to independently stand up to the big multinationals on an even platform.

2)      Big Plant Biotech companies must be strongly urged to adopt and project a stronger farmer-centric image in Europe (besides the rest of the world) where traditional farming practices may be very relevant. Setting up training camps for local farmers and educating them on best practices would greatly help in this regard. Centrally managed ‘certification programs’ by an independent body would further enhance the efficacy of this approach. Investment in this direction by the big plant biotech companies would reap great rewards in the long run. An educated farmer who knows to use the right kind of seeds will not benefit himself but also the brand being used. After all, one has to understand that farmers represent the first level of consumers for these companies and a happy farmer means a happy economy. 

3)      EC has member states that differ in their approaches to cultivation and consumption of GM foods. For example Spain is beginning to be an emerging player in production of GM foods and looks more favorably at developing GM crops. This creates an environment for healthy competing economies that could benefit EC as a whole. A whole new market remains to be tapped if major EC players like France also become more open GM foods albeit in a way that is more well thought out. To begin with local farmers can be made to realize the benefits of planting some new GM crops through promotional distribution of well-tested varieties.

Feeding the future 

The growing demands for mass production of agricultural crops or livestock is only likely to further increase. Unless there is a change in food habits and preferences, the demand for staple crops and livestock will continue. Research in plant biotechnology and genomics has unfortunately fallen a prey to the exacting demands of the big companies who vested needs often overtake the global needs and its well-being. Oddly enough, it’s probably the lack of more such big plant biotech companies (and their investment) that results in the existing MNCs bereft of enough man and brainpower. This in turn leads to such companies having to make hard choices and madly push for better crops without fully testing them. Funnily enough, the answer to address this dichotomy probably lies in the creation more such multinationals who need the load of the back of the current breed of MNCs. Hence if it is not the EC, the burgeoning economies in Asia, South America or others will have to come to the fore and create their own multinationals to answer such growing global needs.  China has been already developing the world’s largest plant biotechnology capacity outside of North America. Countries like India and Brazil will not be far behind either. Hence in a crunch like situation like this, not only the EC but also countries all over need to come together with other economies and actively support better means of crop development. Not just the EC but also governments across the world with agrarian based economies need to urge their private sector and encourage them to set up more R&D and business enterprises and remove the current bottleneck to address the growing global needs.

Note: This article was written a few years back as a part of a classroom exercise and lots of things have happened in between. The core thought process, however, remains roughly the same. 

© Copyright - . All rights reserved. No part of this posted material may be used without direct consent from the author – Natarajan Ganesan