Fifth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research (Funded to Liverpool, UK) 2018

Application Deadlines:

• Call for organized sessions: 15th January, 2018
• Call for individual abstracts: 5th March, 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): Liverpool, UK

About the Award: The Alma Ata vision of ‘Health for All’ remains as compelling today as it was in 1978, as reflected in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 health goal. But the world has changed in forty years. Despite improved health outcomes, there remain extraordinary challenges for health equity and social inclusion, such as demographic and disease transitions, conflicts and their subsequent migrations, pluralistic health systems and markets, and climate change. Political systems still marginalize those most in need. Yet there are new opportunities for health systems to achieve universal coverage.

The Fifth Global Symposium will advance conversations and collaborations on new ways of financing health, delivering services and engaging the health workforce, new social and political alliances, and new applications of technologies to promote health for all.

Theme: Advancing Health Systems for All in the Sustainable Development Goal Era

Within the overarching Symposium theme, we welcome abstracts linked to the following four sub-themes:

1. The SDGs as a stimulus for renewed multisectoral action

2. Polemic and pragmatism: engaging the private sector in moving towards universal health coverage

3. Leaving no one behind: health systems that deliver for all

4. Community health systems – where community needs are located, but often the invisible level of health systems

5. Other

Abstracts may be submitted through:

1. Organised Sessions

2. Individual Abstracts

In order to foster diversity, each person will be permitted to present a maximum of:

• Once in an organized session (either as chair/moderator or named contributor);
• Once in individual abstract-based sessions;
• And once as a poster presenter, based on an accepted individual abstract.

Multiple submissions that include the same named contributor will be reviewed by the Scientific Committee, but the Program Working Group will be responsible for finalizing abstract selection so as to maximize diversity and ensure balance across the program.

Type: Call for Papers

Eligibility: Abstracts in English, French and Spanish will be accepted.

1. Organized sessions

Organizers may submit proposals for 90-minute sessions under two different ‘session type’ categories:

• Participatory sessions: These could be round table discussions, debates, ‘fishbowl’ discussions, simulations, games, pyramid sessions, group modelling, or any other approach that actively encourages audience participation.
• Panel presentations: This format is the traditional panel presentation, but organizers must allow adequate time for audience discussion and interaction.

Evaluation criteria

In line with the core Symposium principles, the Scientific Committee will be asked to assess organized sessions on the basis of: (i) technical merit; (ii) relevance to the Symposium theme; (iii) significance for the sub-theme area and/or field-building dimension; (iv) engagement of policy-makers, managers and civil society groups (i.e. chair and those with planned roles); and (v) potential for active involvement by the audience.

2. Individual abstracts

• Individual abstracts may be submitted as a paper, poster or multimedia presentation.
• A paper is a 10 minute oral presentation with 5 minutes allowed for questions. Note: If an abstract is submitted as a paper, it may be accepted as a poster – please do not submit for both a paper and a poster for the same abstract.
• A poster is a physical display that is no more than 120 cm by 80 cm in size.
• A multimedia presentation could be a short film, documentary, animated film or photo-essay and should be no longer than 15 minutes in total presentation time.

Abstract format

• For empirical research presentations a structured abstract should be prepared, covering background, methods, results and discussion / conclusions.
• For conceptual research, or work under other field-building dimensions, abstracts should cover Purpose, focus/content, significance for the sub-theme area/field-building dimension of relevance and target audience.
• Individual abstracts may be accepted either for oral, multimedia or poster presentation.

Evaluation criteria

In line with the core principles of the Symposium, the Scientific Committee will be asked to assess individual abstracts on the basis of: (i) technical merit; (ii) relevance to the Symposium theme; (iii) significance to the sub-theme area and field-building dimension.

Value of Award: Organizers of the Fifth Global Symposium hope to be able to provide travel support to some participants, in particular residents of low- or middle-income countries and full-time students (from countries of all income levels). Applications for travel support will be accepted only after the results of the organized session and individual abstract review process is complete (approximately April 2016). Applications will only be accepted from those who have had an individual abstract accepted (for poster and/or oral presentation) or who are named contributors within an accepted organized session that does not have external funding. The number of scholarships offered per organized session will be dependent on funding availability.

Duration of Program: 8th-12th October 2018

How to Apply:

Organised Sessions: The organized session template requires the following information:

• Title (maximum 25 words)
• Session type
• Thematic area and field-building dimension
• The session organizer’s contact details
• Contributors’ details: the session chair/ moderator as well as a maximum of four/five named additional contributors, who will play active roles in the session; whether lead author is from a low- or middle-income country
• A short (50 word) overview of the organized session that will appear in the Symposium program
• A 400-word (maximum) summary of the session content, including: purpose/objective, technical content, target audience and significance for the selected thematic area and/or field-building dimension; learning objectives
• A 400-word (maximum) summary of the planned session process, including: short description of any presentations or inputs, the moderation or management approach of the session, the role of contributors – both those named in the abstract and any others with planned roles, and a rough breakdown as to how the 90 minutes will be used.

Individual Abstracts: Those submitting individual abstracts will be required to submit the following information:

• Title (maximum 25 words)
• Speaker contact details
• Sub-theme and field-building dimension
• For multimedia submission: link to the video/photos if available
• List of co-authors for listing in the abstract book, if applicable
• An abstract of 400 words or less

Registration for the Symposium will open in April 2018.

If your organized session or individual abstract is accepted for presentation, you will be required to register and pay as a delegate in order to be able to participate in the Symposium.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Health Systems Global

Yale Young Global Scholars for Secondary School Students 2018

Essay Topic:

“In an age of quick and easy global communication, what is the value of face-to-face interaction and learning with students from around the world?”

To craft a good essay requires careful argumentation, clear structure and personality. It is these characteristics that we will look for in judging applicants’ essays. We will also take into account the letter of recommendation supplied by your school.

Application Deadline: 1st December 2017

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Cambridge University, UK

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

• Applicants must be between the ages of 15 and 17 on 1st July 2018, and currently studying at high school.
• The students must complete the essays independently – they must be original non-plagiarised work.
• The closing date for scholarship applications is 1stof December 2017 at 23:00 GMT. We will only consider full applications submitted by this date. A full application is one that includes an answer to the essay question and all other questions on the “Scholarship” tab, the letter of recommendation from your school, and also has the following sections completed on the account page: School Transcript, Declaration Form, Parent Info, School Info.
• Applicants from fee-paying schools will only be considered if their letter of recommendation confirms that they attend the school on a scholarship.
• The prizes provide without charge all those items ordinarily covered by the program fee, including accommodation, all excursions, lectures, theatre trips, workshops and tuition, and half board meals.
• These prizes do not include those items which are not ordinarily covered by the program fee: flights; transportation to/from Cambridge at the start and end of the program if travel is undertaken independently; third meal of the day (half board is provided); optional enhancements shown to have an extra fee; snacks, drinks and meals purchased away from the program; pocket money and souvenirs; visa costs (if required); books for credit courses and classes; laundry (aside from bed linen); travel insurance, medical insurance and any medical or dental fees.
• It is not guaranteed that Reach Cambridge will offer scholarship prizes to any of the candidates. Reach Cambridge reserves the right to not award scholarship prizes.
• Shortlisted candidates will be notified by 31st December 2017.
• Shortlisted candidates will be invited for an online interview in early January 2018, and will be notified of the outcome by the end of January.
• The author of the students’ recommendation letter may be contacted for further information.
• The final decision on prize winners rests with Reach Cambridge Ltd. By submitting an application for the scholarship the student agrees to respect and honour the decision made by Reach Cambridge.
• By submitting an application to the scholarship competition, the student agrees to assist with promoting the scholarship scheme if awarded a prize.
• The successful applicant also agrees to their name being published on the Reach Cambridge website, as well as on its social media pages.
• The student must have permission from a parent or guardian to accept the scholarship. Scholarship prizes are conditional on parental approval – a parent/guardian will be required to sign a declaration that they accept the Reach Cambridge terms and conditions and rules and regulations.
• By applying for this scholarship, the student agrees to abide by the Reach Cambridge Terms and Conditions and Rules and Regulations, available on our website, as well as these scholarship terms and conditions
• Students do not have to pay a deposit before applying for the scholarship.
• Please note that all terms and conditions for Reach Cambridge courses, including the cancellation policy, also apply for scholarship applicants.

Selection Criteria: To craft a good essay requires careful argumentation, clear structure and personality. It is these characteristics that we will look for in judging applicants’ essays. We will also take into account the letter of recommendation supplied by your school.

Number of Awardees: up to 5

Value of Contest: Winners of the Reach Cambridge Summer Scholarship Essay will be awarded with

• First Prize: 3 week scholarship prize (awarded to a maximum of 2 students): 100% of the program fee for our 3 week Program 1 in 2018.
• Second Prize: 2 week scholarship prize (awarded to a maximum of 3 students): 100% of the program fee for either our two week Program 2 or our two week Program 3 in 2018.

Both prizes include all those items ordinarily covered by the program fee. They do not include the cost of flights, or other items which are not ordinarily covered by the programme fee. See terms & conditions of the Reach Cambridge Summer Scholarship Essay contest for further details.

How to Apply: In order to enter the competition, follow these simple steps to complete a full application by the 1st of December 2017:

• Follow the link below to set up a Reach Cambridge scholarship account (do not use the “apply” button at the top right of our website – you cannot set up a scholarship account through that link)
• From your main account page, select the “Scholarship” tab on the left
• Copy your essay into the box provided (it should be no longer than 1000 words). Answer all other questions on the page.
• A letter of recommendation from a member of staff at your school must be uploaded using the form in the Scholarship Tab of your account page. This should be written on official headed school paper, and should outline why you are a good candidate for the scholarship: it should tell us what makes you academically excellent, and it must give us some indication of your financial circumstances. For example, if you attend a fee-paying school, the letter must specify whether you attend the school on a scholarship, or whether you are full or part fee-paying. It must include contact details for the member of staff so that we can contact them for further information if necessary. This is the only part of the application that should come from your school – the rest needs to be completed by you.
• You must also complete the School Transcript, Declaration Form, Parent Info, and School Info sections of your account. Please note that if you do not complete all these sections of your application, we will not consider your application. They should all be “ticked” on your account page before the deadline.
• Shortlisted candidates will be notified by 31st December 2017, and will be invited for an online interview.

Apply for the 2018 Scholarship Scheme

Please ensure you read the Reach Cambridge Summer Scholarship Essay competition terms and conditions before applying. By submitting an application you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Reach Cambridge

Coca-Cola Nigeria Youth Empowered Workshop Program for Young Nigerians 2017

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To Be Taken At (Country):  Lagos, Kano and Port Harcourt in Nigeria

About the Award: Youth Empowered Nigeria is a programme designed to support young Nigerian graduates and undergraduates to build life skills, business skills and long-lasting networks to transition to meaningful employment or to start a business. The goal is to empower them with the skills needed to succeed in the workplace and business environment. Lagos, Kano and Port Harcourt will host the live workshops in 2017.

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: The Program invites young Nigerian graduates and undergraduates.

Number of Awards: 500

Value of Award: This workshop is free

Duration of Program: Dates for the workshop are:

•  Lagos (October 17-19)
•  Port Harcourt (November 8-10)
•  Kano (November 15-17)

How to Apply: Apply on Program Webpage

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Nigeria Bottling Company (NBC

Vaccines for Africa Initiative (VACFA) Postdoctoral Research Fellowship 2017 – South Africa

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): South Africa

About the Award: VACFA is under the Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research (CIDER), which is within the School of Public Health and Family Medicine (SPH&FM). VACFA is based in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town (UCT). VACFA’s vision is an Africa free of vaccine preventable diseases. To achieve this vision, VACFA conducts activities in the following areas:
 Research
 Training/Teaching
 Advocacy & Communication

The successful postdoctoral fellow will participate in the following research areas at VACFA:

• Research
  • Conduct systematic reviews in the field of vaccinology. You will be required to initiate, develop, design and write up systematic review protocols. Subsequently, you are expected to implement the protocols, perform data analysis as well as writing of systematic review manuscripts. You may be required to communicate or present the progress of the studies, on behalf of VACFA, to the sponsors.
  • Overseeing the ongoing systematic review studies at VACFA.
  • Support other clinical/public health research projects at VACFA.
• Training/Teaching
  • Teaching and co-supervision of graduate students. You will not be directing their research; however, you would be involved in the daily supervision of conducting systematic reviews, and in guiding the students to write up their theses.
  • Assist in funding applications for VACFA.
  • Assist in developing teaching/training materials for diverse users.
• Advocacy & Communication
  • Use web analytics to improve VACFA’s advocacy and communication plan, specifically via the website and any other social media platform.
  • Assist with website administration duties: VACFA’s website is a critical tool for vaccines’ information dissemination to a diverse audience, both locally and internationally.

Type: Fellowship, Research

Eligibility: 

• have a passion in the field of evidence-based research and immunization programs. Previous experience in evidence-based medicine research is advantageous;
• have obtained a doctoral degree in any relevant field within the past 5 years (eg public health/immunology/health systems/epidemiology/social sciences);
• have held no previous professional or academic posts;
• be willing to take up the fellowship as soon as possible;
• evidence of research output in any of the research areas outlined above;
• be able to work in an interdisciplinary team environment;
• have good organizational and management skills;
• have good written and oral communication skills;
• be prepared to undertake limited teaching/supervision duties as part of his/her professional development;
• be prepared to register at the University of Cape Town as a postdoctoral research fellow and to comply with the policies and practices of the Postdoctoral Research Sector of the University

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The fellowship has a tax-free value of R250,00 to R300,000 per annum, depending on qualifications and experience.

Duration of Program: The duration of the fellowship is one year. The fellowship is renewable on evidence of satisfactory performance and availability of continued funding.

How to Apply: Apply by email to zindzi.korasie@uct.ac.za, providing the following documentation:

• a cover letter describing the applicant’s research interests and indicating how these align with the advertisement;
• a CV that includes full details of publications;
• copies of all academic transcripts and certificates for previous degrees and for the doctoral degree;
• the names of three academic referees with whom the applicant has worked with in the past.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: University of Cape Town

Important Notes: Only short-listed candidates will be contacted. The University of Cape Town reserves the right to disqualify ineligible, incomplete and/or inappropriate applications. The University of Cape Town reserves the right to change the conditions of award or to make no awards at all.

British American Tobacco Nigeria Technical Trainee Program 2017

Application Deadline: 29th October 2017

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To Be Taken At (Country): Ibadan, Nigeria

About the Award: The job purpose is to provide technical support to the Secondary to achieve production targets by ensuring continuous and cost effective operation of machinery through:

–          Minimization of unplanned machine related down time
–          Minimization of raw materials, finished and semi finished product waste
–          Optimization of spare parts and consumables usage
–          Implementation and execution of preventative and curative maintenance plan

British American Tobacco is all about freedom of choice — whether it’s our people or our products. Combined with our entrepreneurial spirit, it’s what’s driven our phenomenal success.   We started trading tobacco over a hundred years ago. Today, we’re a multibillion dollar company with more than 200 brands in our portfolio. With robust positions in each of our regional markets, our future looks equally bright too.

There’s no doubt our industry is controversial — we’re the first to admit that. But rest assured, we take a responsible approach to our trade. In each of our markets, we observe every local law regarding tobacco (in many cases going further through our own voluntary code). Not only that, we treat our farmers fairly, invest in the environment and help to sustain local communities.

We also excel at developing our own people into leaders of the future. As a firm with a high-performance culture, we’ll expect a lot from you. But we’ll support you every step of the way to help you deliver. If you’re passionate and ambitious, rapid career progression is a reality here. And because we’re such a large firm (we employ more than 55,000 people worldwide), there are plenty of exciting opportunities for you to develop a truly extraordinary career.

Type: Jobs/Internship

Eligibility: 

• Basic technical knowledge
• Technical diploma
• Intermediate level of English
• Availability to work in shifts

Number of Awards: 24

Value of Award: This is a paid position

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: British American Tobacco Nigeria (BATN)

Climate and World Hunger: Why the Poor Suffer Most

Catherine Early 

Climate change and natural resource depletion are causing the number of people suffering from hunger to rise following years of decline, according to three major reports.

Record food production and falling prices had generally boosted food security in recent years, the Economist Intelligence Unit said last week [26 September] in the latest edition of its annual index on global food security.

But it warned that fluctuating global economic growth, increasing inequality, political instability and forced migration were all damaging food security. Climate change and depletion of natural resources would aggravate the trend, severely threatening targets under the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals to eradicate hunger by 2030, it said.

815 milion people

So seriously does the research group take the threat that it has added a new category to its index to understand the impact the risk to resilience to shocks on natural resources will have on global food security. Many countries scored more poorly when this category was taken into account, for example, Singapore dropped 15 spots in the country rankings due to its susceptibility to rising sea levels and high dependence on food imports.

Meanwhile, a UN report warned that 815 million people, or 11% of the world population, were going hungry in 2016. This was an increase of 38 million compared with the previous year, and was largely due to the proliferation of violent conflicts and climate-related shocks, it said.

Conflicts had risen dramatically in number and complexity over the past decade, and some of the highest proportions of children suffering from hunger and malnutrition were concentrated in conflict zones, the report stated.

Climate related shocks

The prevalence of hunger in countries affected by conflict is 1.4 – 4.4 percentage points higher than in other countries, while in conflict zones compounded by a degraded environment, the prevalence is 11 and 18 percentage points higher, the report stated.

“Exacerbated by climate-related shocks, conflicts seriously affect food security and are a cause of much of the recent increase in food insecurity,” it said.

However, even in more peaceful regions, droughts or floods linked in part to the El Niño weather phenomenon have also seen food security and nutrition deteriorate, they added.

World’s poorest suffer most

Oxfam’s head of food and climate change Robin Willoughby said: “This must act as a wake-up call for international leaders and institutions to do more to resolve the catastrophic cocktail of climate change and conflict around the world. Global failure to tackle these issues affects us all, but it’s the world’s poorest who will suffer most.”

Finally, the Food and Agriculture Organisation said that good harvests in Latin America and rebounding agricultural conditions in Southern Africa were improving global food supply, but that ongoing civil conflicts and climate-related shocks were affecting progress in reducing hunger.

The UN agency estimated that 37 countries are currently in need of food aid. Persisting conflicts have continued to acutely affect agricultural production and food security conditions. Weather shocks, including floods in West Africa, hurricanes in the Caribbean and droughts in parts of East Africa, have compounded the fragile conditions in some of the conflict-affected countries and also resulted in production shortfalls, reducing the amount of food available, its report stated.

Production of cereal crops was expected to rise moderately in 2017, but hurricane Irma was expected to depress production in the affected areas, particularly in the Caribbean islands, it added.

Have Monsanto and the Biotech Industry Turned Natural Bt Pesticides Into GMO “Super Toxins”?

Jonathan Latham

Is the supposed safety advantage of GMO crops over conventional chemical pesticides a mirage?

According to biotech lore, the Bt pesticides introduced into many GMO food crops are natural proteins whose toxic activity extends only to narrow groups of insect species. Therefore, says the industry, these pesticides can all be safely eaten, e.g. by humans.

This is not the interpretation we arrived at after our analysis of the documents accompanying the commercial approval of 23 typical Bt-containing GMO crops, however (see Latham et al., 2017, just published in the journal Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews).

In our publication, authored along with Madeleine Love and Angelika Hilbeck, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), we show that commercial GMO Bt toxins differ greatly from their natural precursors. These differences are important. They typically cause GMO Bt proteins to be more toxic. Worse, they also cause them to be active against many more species than natural forms of Bt toxins.

SUBUNITS OF CRY1 CRYSTALS SHOWING THE DNA CORE

Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow, are the principal makers of GMO crops intended to kill pests. The vast majority of these GMO insecticidal crops, which include GMO corn, GMO soybeans, and GMO cotton, are engineered to contain a family of protein pesticides called Bt toxins. Such crops may contain up to six different Bt transgenes.

Bt toxins get their name from the bacterial species from which they are originally derived, Bacillus thuringiensis. Biotech seed companies and government officials commonly refer to GMO Bt toxins (which are also called Cry toxins) as “natural”. Commonly also, they state that GMO versions are identical to the Bt toxins used in organic agriculture or in forestry.

But, as we found, GMO Bt toxins are clearly distinct from natural Bt toxins and those used in more traditional farming methods:

1) Whereas natural Bt toxins are insoluble crystals with complex structures built around a DNA molecule (see illustration), all GMO Bt toxins are soluble proteins (with no DNA).

2) Many GMO Bt toxins are truncated proteins.

3) Parts of Bt toxins are often combined to make hybrid GMO molecules that don’t exist in nature.

4) GMO Bt toxins often have added to them synthetic or unrelated protein molecules.

5) Some are mutated to replace specific amino acids.

6) And far from least, all GMO Bt proteins studied by us were additionally altered inside plant cells. It seems that the GMO crop plant itself invariably creates changes in Bt toxins.

Thus, not a single one of the 23 Bt commercial lines that we analysed was identical to natural or historically used versions of Bt toxins. All had at least two of the above categories of alterations, but most had many more. To call GMO Bt proteins natural, as biotech companies standardly do, is therefore misleading and scientifically wrong.

Biological and toxicological significance

The biological meaning of these alterations is not discussed in the commercial applications that we studied. However, we found it can be inferred, at least in part, from a theoretical understanding of the toxicity of natural Bt proteins.

It is first necessary to note that the natural Bt molecules produced by B. thuringiensis are non-toxic crystals. The actual toxicologically active protein is a much smaller soluble fragment. To get from one to the other the crystal must first be eaten, then dissolved, then processed by the gut enzymes of a target organism, all in a precise sequence. The exact physiological and enzymatic conditions required for each step are particular to each toxin and quite rare in nature. This requirement for exacting conditions is, in large part, where the toxicological specificity of natural Bt toxins originates.

Once processed in this way, the much smaller but now activated toxin molecule attaches to receptors in the gut and makes holes in its membranes. This causes the victim to be digested from the inside by the contents its own gut, which includes B. thuringiensis.

This complex mechanism of toxicity can be conceptualised as the sequential removal of a series of inhibitory structures that act like the safety catch on a gun or the sheath on a sword. Processing prevents premature or inappropriate toxicological activity such as the making of holes in the bacteria’s own membranes.

The key inference from this understanding is that GMO developers, by solubilising or shortening Bt toxins, have removed some or all of the inhibitory structures that make natural versions safe for most organisms.

Thus, the standard theory of Bt toxin activation implies that, by creating Bt toxins that are more similar to the toxicologically active form, GMO developers are doing two things. First, they are making each Bt protein more active towards known target species. More worryingly, they are making them potentially hazardous towards an entirely new, though largely unknown, range of organisms. So, while the public explanation for using GMO Bt pesticides is that their toxicity is limited to a few species, this rationale is being undercut by placing them into GMO crops.

Theory only goes so far, however. There is another way to ascertain the effects of the changes made to commercial Bt toxins. That is to measure them. As we show, there are indeed published papers reporting that GMO Bt toxins are more toxic than natural Bt toxins. For example, co-author Angelika Hilbeck has shown that a Bt toxin called Cry1Ab is unexpectedly toxic to neuropteran insects (Hilbeck et al., 1998). US researchers separately showed that the GMO corn MON810 unexpectedly affected caddisflies, whereas non-GMO corn did not (Rosi-Marshall et al., 2007). Other researchers have shown that fewer than 14 pollen grains can kill swallowtail butterflies. These and other results strongly suggest that GMO Bt toxins can behave very differently than natural ones.

Patenting supertoxins

A third way to determine the effects of changes made to Bt proteins is to find a patent in which the developer describes in detail the alterations they have made to a commercial Bt toxin, and the increase in potency that resulted from these alterations.

In US Patent No. 6,060,594 Monsanto describes how they made mutations in a natural Bt toxin called Cry3b that made this natural toxin into, in their own words, a “super toxin” (English et al., 2000). One such super toxin was subsequently introduced to make the commercial GMO corn MON863. Another was used to make GMO corn MON88017. The Bt toxin in MON863 was, according to the patent, 7.9-fold more active than the natural version. These enhanced toxins, claimed the patent, “have the combined advantages of increased insecticidal activity and concomitant broad spectrum activity.”

This finding compellingly supports our contention that altered GMO toxins are more potent in their toxicity and effective against a broader range of species. But Monsanto curiously omitted this information when it applied for a regulatory exemption from EPA for the toxin in MON863. Instead, Monsanto argued that that the Bt protein in MON863 was toxicologically equivalent to the natural Bt protein precursor.

This is a resurfacing of the historic contradiction that has marked biotechnology since its inception. Claiming to be identical to old methods when safety is the issue and novel when the question is patents. It would surely be interesting to sit down EPA and the Patent Office together at the same table.

But that is still not all. As mentioned briefly above, all Bt toxins are further altered–by the plants into which they have been introduced. This creates unique toxin molecules that differ even further from natural ones. The biological explanations for these alterations are not clear, they may be specific to individual transgene insertion events, or the cause may be biochemical processing of the Bt toxin inside plant cells. But whatever that explanation, these alterations also may enhance the toxicity of the Bt molecule or alter its range of affected organisms.

To understand this point better it is important to appreciate that all commercialised GMOs represent unique genetic events. Each event has been specifically selected for pesticidal effectiveness in the greenhouse of the developer from among thousands of other, presumably less effective, breeding lines. This selection step creates the probability that a commercial GMO will have unique and unexpected toxicological properties that are responsible for that effectiveness.

Implications and inferences

Our analysis is of importance for many reasons. First, are the real world ecological implications. According to our estimations, a series of independent alterations are creating enhancements in Bt protein toxicity. If each individual enhancement gives rise to a many-fold increase in toxicity, which, according to industry data it often does, then the cumulative effect is likely to be very large.

(This is particularly so when the vast quantities of Bt toxins present in each GMO crop field are considered. Not only are Bt proteins present in every cell of each GMO plant, but stacked GMO crop varieties increasingly have many different Bt transgenes. It is easy to imagine that GMO Bt crops may be having large effects on agricultural ecosystems.)

Second, there is a lesson here surely for new generations of biotechnologies. What our paper shows is that government regulators across the globe have opted to assume that Bt toxins, no matter how much they have been altered, whether accidentally or on purpose, have a toxicological profile that is unchanged.

Such an interpretation is highly convenient for applicants wanting to roll out potent novel toxins, but it is useless for protecting public health and the environment. Such disregard of the scientific evidence, laid out in full by us for the first ever time, is part of an unfortunate wider pattern–which we have been documenting–of adoption by GMO regulators of industry-friendly theoretical frameworks and interpretations.

It is the question for our times. How to integrate science into decision-making but ensure it is applied rigorously and impartially and therefore in the public interest?

The India-China Face Off

Brian Cloughley

In this era of widespread nuclear capabilities it is important that admirals and generals should refrain from commenting forcefully on international affairs in public.

It is expected that such as the Commander of US forces in the Pacific, Admiral Harris, will continue to threaten China by saying such things as “We will cooperate when we can but we will be ready to confront when we must,” while the chief of US European Command and NATO’S Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Scaparrotti, will carry on declaring publicly that “we are returning to our historic role as a warfighting command” in order to increase tension with Russia, but it is possible that Moscow and Beijing just laugh at that sort of thing. (Incidentally, what was Scaparrotti’s vast array of military muscle doing before it returned to warfighting?)

Generals and admirals should certainly pay close attention to world developments, because it is essential for their country’s security and planning that they and their staffs should analyze the situation along national borders and in other areas of strategic significance ; but making statements to the world at large about going to war with specific countries is not the responsibility of the military, and the observation on September 6 by India’s army chief, General Bipin Rawat, that China is his nation’s “northern adversary” was confrontational to the point of irresponsibility.

The nuclear arsenals and readiness states of India and China — and neighboring Pakistan — are formidable and threatening, and in such circumstances intemperate pronouncements on international policy by public figures are best avoided.

The day before the General made his comment, the international BRICS summit meeting in Beijing, attended by five national leaders, including President Xi of China and India’s Prime Minister Modi, had ended with a positive declaration that the gathering “fostered the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, equality, solidarity, openness, inclusiveness and mutually beneficial cooperation.”  The political heads of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa declared they shared a desire for “peace, security, development and cooperation,” but the chances of any advance by China and India towards compromise and harmony were somewhat blunted by the Indian army commander’s announcement that China was “flexing [its] muscles” by “salami slicing, taking over territory in a very gradual manner, testing our limits or threshold.”

On September 5 the leaders of India and China had a discussion described by the Indian side as “forward-looking” with emphasis on “peace and tranquility in border areas.” It was stated they desire “closer communication between the defense and security personnel of India and China” which now might seem to be a forlorn hope, given General Rawat’s stark warning next day that not only is there likelihood of conflict with China, but that it would probably extend to war with Pakistan.

The General said that “Whether these [border] conflicts will be limited and confined in space and time, or whether these can expand into an all-out war along the entire front with the Western adversary [Pakistan] taking advantage of the situation developing on the Northern border [with China], is very much likely.” He seemed to be setting the stage for further confrontation between Beijing and Delhi at the very time that tension had eased a little,  following a nasty military face-off in their disputed border region. As reported on September 7 in the Guardian newspaper, “India last week agreed to pull troops from the disputed Doklam plateau high in the Himalayas, where Chinese troops had started building a road. The 10-week standoff was the two nations’ most protracted in decades, and added to their longstanding strategic rivalry.”

The Washington Post noted that “In India, news outlets painted Monday’s [August 28] stand-down as a win for Indian diplomacy,” which was a polite way of saying that India’s media treated the agreement as an out-and-out victory for India.  The Economic Times, for example, boasted that “New Delhi, which stood firm amid Beijing’s relentless provocation, sent out a message that it would stand by a friend [Bhutan] in times of crisis and in the process strengthened its partnership with Asian countries, particularly in South and Southeast Asia,” and the Hindustan Times headlined “Unmistakable message: Doklam showed India can dig in heels, stand up for ally.”

This is not what China wanted to hear, and its media riposted in robust terms, with the difference, of course, that it speaks with the voice of central authority, unlike that of India, where, even if its press and TV are on occasions infantile to the point of absurdity (they’ve learned a lot from Britain and America), they are totally independent. The message came through from both sides that although they had agreed to defuse the potentially disastrous situation, they were not going to admit for an instant that they were the slightest bit in the wrong ; and although the actors may have withdrawn to the wings for the moment, the stage was set for further drama.  General Rawat’s comments were more than noises off, because nobody could ignore the words of such an important national figure.

One indication of China’s disapproval of India’s stance was cancellation of a minor military ceremonial function on October 1.  Since 2005 there have been two meetings annually between the armed forces of India and China at five posts along their frontier, but this time the Chinese government did not issue an invitation to the Indian side for such a get-together.  By such seemingly trivial actions are high displeasures made known, and it can be expected that there will be other and more significant indications that China has no intention of giving up its claims to territory it considers belong to it. As General Rawat told the media on August 26, two days before the Doklam dispute petered out, “Let’s say this stand-off gets resolved, but our troops on the border should not feel that it cannot happen again. Such instances are likely to increase in future . . .  My message to the troops is to not let down the guard.”

China and India have never been comfortable neighbors, and recent events have shown that their relationship continues to be precarious.  Mutual distrust is understandable, given their history of confrontation along what is called the ‘Line of Actual Control’ dividing territory clamed by both countries, but in more recent times it has become apparent that India is not only allying itself with the United States, but is pursuing an anti-China policy it hopes will be regarded with US approval. That this is proving successful was shown by a report on October 4 in India’s Tribune newspaper that “The Trump administration on Wednesday threw its weight behind India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), saying it passes through a disputed territory [Pakistan-administered Kashmir] and no country should put itself into a position of dictating the Belt and Road initiative.”

Instead of drawing closer together, as optimistically hoped by most leaders of the BRICS in their advocacy of “mutually beneficial cooperation”, it appears that India is drawing away from China and has tied its flag to the mast of an increasingly confrontational United States.  Although the Delhi government seems reluctant to engage in direct military cooperation with the Pentagon (no US bases in India, for example), it is no coincidence that the first visit to India by a senior member of the Trump administration was that of General Mattis, the defense secretary, on September 25-27.

India has signaled that it’s in for the long haul along the Line of Actual Control by establishing a new 90,000-strong army corps in the region, building strategic roads, and developing a network of airfields in the forward areas to support advanced combat aircraft and heavy transports. China has also increased its military presence, and is not going to accept anything other than an Indian climb-down concerning border region claims. The chances of conflict are high and getting higher, and no doubt China has noted that, as reported by The Hindu on September 24, “the US has already become India’s top defense supplier with the sale of three Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules aircraft, 10 C-17 Globemaster and 12 P-8 Poseidon aircraft from Boeing, as well as 22 AH-64 Apache and 15 CH-47 Chinook helicopters. US and India also signed a deal worth $750 million in December 2016, under which the government will be buying 145 M777 Howitzer guns for the Army. America is now pushing India to buy around 100-150 F-16 Block 70 combat aircraft produced by Lockheed Martin as well as around 20 Sea Guardian drones.”

In the end it all comes down to money for military sales, and there’s nothing like international confrontation for boosting the morale and share prices of the US military-industrial complex. But it would still be advisable for General Bipin Rawat and his colleagues to guard their tongues. The India-China standoff is a serious matter, and it shouldn’t be allowed to escalate, no matter the profit involved.