Bayer, Rothamsted partner for sustainable crop care solutions
Bayer AG and Rothamsted Research have entered into a strategic framework agreement to improve collaborations in scientific areas, that will support the development of more customized agronomic solutions for farmers.
Building on a track record of collaborations, the partners are forming this strategic alliance to support a digital revolution for detecting and managing biotic threats such as pests, pathogens and weeds more sustainably. Coordinated activities, in the laboratory and in the field, will generate the data, know-how, tools and technologies that help to support a transition to smarter crop protection.
The partners will work together in a number of research areas: from real-time detection of pests in the environment to understanding the evolution of resistance; and from the identification of new modes of action of insecticides to novel approaches to controlling pests.
“Crops are exposed to a wide range of both biotic and abiotic stresses, and we expect our enhanced collaboration with Rothamsted to help us develop a better understanding of how these factors can be more sustainably managed to reduce crop losses worldwide and manage resistance more effectively,” said Dr Adrian Percy, global head of research and development at crop science, a division of Bayer.
Read more: Bayer, Rothamsted partner for sustainable crop care solutions
Billones de insectos migran en vuelo de gran altura cada año
Billones de insectos migran en vuelo de gran altura cada año
Científicos británicos midieron por primera vez los movimientos anuales de insectos que vuelan a gran altura, llevados por los vientos. Según sus observaciones, publicadas el jueves en la revista estadounidense Science, son unos 3,5 billones y pesan 3.200 toneladas.
Si las densidades de insectos observados en el cielo del sur de Reino Unido se extrapolaran al espacio aéreo de todos los…
9 - Study Shows Wheat Crop Yield Can Be Increased by Up to 20% | AgroNews
9 – Study Shows Wheat Crop Yield Can Be Increased by Up to 20% | AgroNews
"The new plant application, developed by Rothamsted Research and Oxford University, could help solve the issue of increasing food insecurity across the globe. Some 795 million people are undernourished, and this year’s El Nino has shown how vulnerable many countries are to climate-induced drought. The results of the study, published in Nature, detail the method based on using synthetic…
5 GM Wheat Could Be Grown in Britain From Next Spring | AgroNews
5 GM Wheat Could Be Grown in Britain From Next Spring | AgroNews
"Genetically modified wheat could be grown in Britain from next spring after scientists applied to the Department for the Environment for permission to begin trials which could boost grain yields by up to 40 per cent, in a ‘world’s first’ experiment. Researchers at the universities of Essex, Lancaster and Rothamsted Research have proven that it is possible to engineer wheat plants so they…
"Understand what ticks your bones and makes you a happy person professionally"
Dr Elizabete Carmo-Silva works at Rothamsted Research, UK where she studies Rubisco and photosynthesis regulation to optimize plant productivity and improve food security.
First, can you tell me a little about you? For example, how did you become interested in science?
I am a Portuguese researcher living and working in the UK. When I was a teenager my favourite subjects were Maths and Biology. During my studies in biology at the University of Lisbon, I was inspired by the excitement of a Professor for Plant Biology, and I then became fascinated by Plant Physiology. To me, plants are truly amazing and my research focuses on understanding their Biology.
What has been your career path? What drives you and makes you enjoy your current work position? What keeps you motivated when everything seems to fall apart?
I did what they called a ‘sandwich PhD’, with my research being carried out partly at the University of Lisbon and partly at Rothamsted Research in the UK. I then did a Post-Doc at a USDA Lab in the Phoenix area, before returning to Rothamsted as a tenure-track research scientist.
I truly love doing research and understanding how plants function. I am particularly interested in photosynthesis and Rubisco. My current work position is particularly great and enjoyable because I work on what I like the most and I am part of a fabulous dynamic group with a great team spirit. When I am less happy, I think of the good fun I have had in the past and remember that science frequently faces obstacles, but that’s simply part of the process. Recalling that there will be light at the end of the tunnel helps me keep motivated and happy!
What have been the biggest struggles you have had to deal with on your journey? In particular, have you faced discrimination or felt disadvantaged? How have you dealt with these issues?
I have been very fortunate and always worked with nice and supportive people. I have had only a couple of issues, with colleagues from other groups or different backgrounds, mainly not understanding my dedication for science. I have tried to make them see that people can be different and, when dialogue did not work, I sought advice from speaking with my managers. I believe that the acceptance for women in science is largely improving and it is only the odd person who does still discriminate against us. Overall, I see a better balance between genders; employers are looking more for skills and merit rather than gender, it is becoming a more equal world.
What is the (professional/personal) achievement you are the most proud of?
I am very proud of myself for having done the postdoc in Arizona. It was a challenging period of my life but extremely enriching, it made me grow a lot and appreciate myself better.
Have mentors played an important role in your career? Are you yourself acting as a mentor?
Mentors have been very important in my career. I have mainly got very good advice and mentorship from my advisors. I now try to give advice and mentor younger scientists whenever I see an opportunity. Sometimes I tell them about my own experience and some other times I simply listen to their worries and try to inspire them.
What has been the most important advice you were ever given?
At the end of my post-doc I had a reflection moment where I was evaluating what I should do next and whether I wanted to continue doing research. I was very fearful of not being good enough. My supervisor made me trust myself and advised me to look for a more permanent job rather than another post-doc. He said: “You are ready.” That made a huge difference!
I also had a very good advice from my PhD supervisor. When my research was simply not working for a couple of months she said: “Elizabete, persistence is perhaps the biggest lesson you have to learn. Keep working and things will get better.” They did.
What is the best advice you could give to young female scientists?
Go for it! Put some effort in understanding what is it that ticks your bones and makes you a happy person professionally, then believe in yourself and do it.
Self-confidence is not always easy to build. How have you dealt with confidence issues? Do you have tips/tricks that helped you with establishing yourself as a leader in your field?
I frequently deal with confidence issues. I try to think of my previous achievements and that always helps me believe that I can do it. Meeting accomplished researchers and realising that they are normal people has also greatly helped me; they may have brilliant minds but they are human. When I am still in doubt, I seek help from my mentors and, again, they are extremely supportive and make me believe that I can do it.
Work/life balance is one of the big issues women face. How do you deal with this issue?
I am perhaps not the best to talk about this because for several years I have put my research first and have only recently started a relationship. And this was perfectly fine, I was happy on my own. Not everyone needs to have a partner, or at least not at all times. Then it simply happened. In my case, my partner is also a scientist and highly committed to research, but we do have our work versus home time and it is great to have company to do fun things. Children were also not a priority to me. I think it would have been at least twice as challenging if I had a family over the past ten years, but I believe it is a matter of prioritising and finding good compromises.
If you could (or if you had to) start over again, what would you do differently?
There are many things I could have done differently, and perhaps better, but I try to see the good side to each thing so I can’t readily identify something I would have done differently. I used to be a very undecided person and then once I told myself: “right, now grow up, make up your mind and be responsible for your decisions!” They won’t always be the right decisions, but I have been much better at making the most of each of them. When something goes wrong, I try to learn the lesson for a future situation. Perhaps I would have started doing this reflection exercise earlier in my career to avoid repeating mistakes.
And to finish, fortune cookie question! Do you have a ‘ritual’ before giving a talk?
I've been following the GM Wheat saga from a distance and I have to say: after yesterday's events I'm impressed. The heavy policing operation aside, the efforts of the researchers to engage in debate were exemplary. The word from Twitter and friends who attended as geeks in the park was summed up by the tweet "You [pro-researchers] can't have the right to reply because we've heard it all before!" These people clearly won't engage in debate and aren't making things easy for themselves.
Well done guys for taking a risk with a new PR strategy and for being brave enough to go on film and make your points. I remember one of my lecturer's here at Uni criticising the committee of the Neuroscience student society for putting a picture of themselves up in the lobby of the Medical School here because of fears they'd be targeted by animal rights nutters. I remember at the time agreeing with him but this issue has made me realise that sometimes you do just have to put your head above the parapet and defend your work.
Finally, I'd like to make two more points to the anti-GM protestors that I haven't heard made by either side in this debate - or more likely I don't remember coming across them, my memory's a little fuzzy right now due to finals. 1: Around 25% of any given crop is lost to pests (source: my fiancee's crop genetic engineering Biology BSc lectures) so any improvement on that without the use of chemical pesticides (which an EU directive last year seeks to phase out and ban) is a step forward.
2: Most of these technologies will be for export. The UK, largely, is self sufficient and won't need to use GMOs to feed itself. It's the parts of the globe that are less fortunate in their climate and infrastructure that will benefit from these technologies.
This is publicly funded research and, while the patent may be sold to biotech firm that's how the system works (examples include high throughput cytometric imaging technology, asthma drugs and vaccine technology - examples from my own experience). If you don't like it, engage with the democratic process and have Parliament direct the BBSRC away from this sort of research funding and aim to win the debate properly. Write to your MP, learn the science and aim to educate people rather than destroying research and looking like Luddites.
I'm writing this after hearing about the damage done at the Rothamsted research facility. First up, full disclosure: I'm a Virology and Immunology undergraduate at the University of Bristol so I don't have a PhD, I'm not an authority figure in my field nor do work for any crop or biotech company but I do understand why the research at Rothamsted is so very, very important.
Personally, I seek to be a doctor (more disclosure, just so you know I'm not looking for a job in any of the above mentioned companies). I want to make a difference to peoples lives but the work I'll do over the course of my career will pale in comparison to the work the crop scientists are doing the world over. I estimate that Edward Jenner's Smallpox vaccine has saved ~2 billion lives since it was introduced in the late 18th Century, Norman Borlaug by contrast has saved ~4 billion since he initiated the 'Green Revolution' in the 1970s. You've probably not heard of Borlaug so here's his Wikipedia page. Admittedly, that's just a ballpark comparison but my point stands: this research will save more lives than any medical research technology we have or could ever hope to develop. In terms of impact on people's lives, the medical research community stands like an infant next to the veritable impact behemoth of crop science.
I ask you, what gives you the right to actively destroy this research? Research that is publicly funded, no less! If you oppose it then engage with the democratic process: Parliament ultimately decides where research money should go so make your voice heard with your MP - direct action like this is counterproductive and very harmful. If the majority in a democracy disagree with you then accept that but don't ruin lives and livelihoods because of you're own selfishness.
I understand you have concerns but this is not the way to go about them. I, too, find the idea of Monsato's 'terminator genes' abhorrent and firmly believe that crop science should be open access and publicy funded for the benefit of all. Why? Put simply: everyone needs to eat and while the UK is broadly self-sufficient, (a few tweaks in agricultural policy and we could grow more than enough to feed ourselves) we are the second biggest publisher of scientific research in the world. We have pioneered dozens of fields across science and it is only right we should use that expertise to contribute something to the world.
So I say to you, talk to the scientists or face the hand of justice for your criminal actions. If you feel the need to continue these actions and not behave like rational human beings you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. By destroying this research, you are killing people, denying livelihoods and causing untold suffering. In the fullness of time, GM will save lives and there's little that can be done to stop this research without democratically engaging with the process.
---
I am happy to field any questions on this subject. I'm not an expert, just a guy with a science background wanting this stupidity to stop.
Go see senseaboutscience.org for some real experts -their Q&As are excellent and do excellent work in science communication.
