The myopia required to claim that "The puzzle of how tobacco plants produce nicotine, however, has been around since the late 1820s" is egregious considering we've evidence attesting to tobacco use dating back twelve thousand years.
Does the author genuinely believe that no one wondered in the ten thousand years between our earliest example of tobacco use and 1820?
The myopia required to claim that "The puzzle of how tobacco plants produce nicotine, however, has been around since the late 1820s" is egregious considering we've evidence attesting to tobacco use dating back twelve thousand years.
Does the author genuinely believe that no one wondered in the ten thousand years between our earliest example of tobacco use and 1820?
And the implication is they can modify tomato's DNA to produce nicotine, just like Tomacco from The Simpsons. The Simpsons always predict everything.
You may enjoy the original paper[0] a lot more, the simplified article is very... simple.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-72705-0
Pairs well with https://phys.org/news/2026-04-tobacco-psychedelics-psilocybi... !
It would be great if they could improve upon it.
I find nicotine to be an underperforming chemical, despite its popularity. A bit more of a cognitive kick would be nice. Know what I mean?
I know there's at least one nicotine analogue that's been sold. Pretty sure it's carcinogenic, but maybe there are some other options.