Slashdot Mirror

It is a long established fact that Yucca Mountain is not suited as a nuclear waste deposit.
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwast...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Why don't you just change flags and advocate for Solar and Wind and Pumped Storage?

There are more precise explanations, but I'll try to put it in layman's terms;

Space is mostly empty and thus NOT good at transferring heat.

This is why a vacuum flask works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Heat can be thought of atoms vibrating with more or less energy depending on how 'hot' things are. If you want to cool something down, a good way to do it is to put these energetic atoms in contact with others 'cool' ones which have less energy. Put ice in hot water and energy levels out.

In space, there is nothing to transfer to, so you have to irradiate (using radiators)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Getting very cold is not trivial, and can be problematic:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Life detected on Earth!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

at least dysprosium is no longer in short supply.

The problem with science in the US is that it has been overrun by MBAs and liberal self-centered asswipes that think they should get money just because they deserve it.

MBA's may be a problem, but you're just shaking your personal marotte when complaining about liberals. Problems for science in the US are mostly on the other side of the aisle. Some of the most powerful Republican politicians can come up with absolute howlers and go on to create legislation related to areas they're so blatantly ignorant about, but the party and their voters have no problem with that. The Republican president is proudly scientifically illiterate, but can and does name leaders of science (or related) agencies - and again, neither the party nor the voters feel there is a problem. The rank and file Republicans are themselves against science funding, while the Democrats are in majority in favor of increased science spending.

So, you're wrong. But then, since you're apparently a Republican, it was probably never about being right, was it?

I've only been doing this for a couple od decades. I'm sure that this will be good.

[First,] You can't patent things

The USPTO explicitly disagrees with you ("35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define 'things' or 'products' while the first category defines 'actions' (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed)."). You can, in fact, patent things.

"[Second,] You can't patent ideas

Good thing that I didn't mention patenting ideas. I mentioned patenting a genetically modified plant. Which, again, you can, in fact, do.

"And thirdly, you can't patent the obvious.

Merely calling something obvious does not make it so. How do you propose to do it? With what gene, inserted where within the genome, using what promoter, via what vector or editing process?

"A general incentive does not make obvious a particular result, nor does the existence of techniques by which those efforts can be carried out." In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed.Cir.1995). Trying "each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result, where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful" is not a disqualifying sort of "obviousness," and neither is "explor[ing] a new technology or general approach that seemed to be a promising field of experimentation, where the prior art gave only general guidance as to the particular form of the claimed invention or how to achieve it." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

It might be possible to patent the specific process of copying the genes from one organism to another (if it's novel enough), but not the result and not the idea of doing so.

Yes you can (see claim 24). And the Supreme Court of the U.S. will even let you enforce the patent.

OK, here's someone who actually understands what the article was about. It's interesting and informative, but the short is, not enough info to decide about bio-synthesis:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

Direct links to the two papers since our eminent editors can't seem to be bothered to do their job.

Organic matter preserved in 3-billion-year-old mudstones at Gale crater, Mars

Background levels of methane in Marsâ(TM) atmosphere show strong seasonal variations

Posting anonymously to not karma whore.

Direct links to the two papers since our eminent editors can't seem to be bothered to do their job.

Organic matter preserved in 3-billion-year-old mudstones at Gale crater, Mars

Background levels of methane in Marsâ(TM) atmosphere show strong seasonal variations

Posting anonymously to not karma whore.

Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.

FTFY

That is a demonstrably false statement. Not basing policy on scientific research can demonstrate competence.

Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research. Those government officials who based that policy on research are incompetent and any (hypothetical) government officials who did not base public policy on that scientific research would have acted competantly.

It was always obvious to a many that the policy and science were wrong. My father was a biophysicist and he always knew government anti-fat propaganda was based on junk science. There is nothing extraordinary about that. His standard for judging scientific conclusions was the formerly-conventional strong inference standard.

Those who knew better and spoke up at the time of the anti-fat propaganda were shouted down by people such as yourself, wielding precisely the same argument which you now make. There is a staggering cost in money, lives and well-being of obeying your faulty logic. You and your ilk have oceans of blood on your hands.

clearly flase.
Even if you were telling the truth, it would just show all the other reporters commonly (always?) 'dumb things down for Americans' too. Exactly like I've been telling you all along. The cognitive dissonance must be very strong with you, is your ego really so weak that you can't admit the truth, even to yourself?

What's you alternative theory for the changes if it's not exactlly like I told you? Does your denial stretch far enough to come up with another explanation?

Science is not static and California did not bypass it. Science is a constant process of discovery and the results are seldom binary.

A better opinion piece with citations: https://www.healthline.com/nut...

Has anyone ever heard of Acrylamide before reading the original article?

I'm still going to enjoy coffee regardless of the warning label informing me of exposure.

Why stay ignorant?

When new science comes out, I'll adjust accordingly.*

People are still going to do whatever they want https://youtu.be/wGI3rL7smN8

We left a generation dead from "No Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer".

And who kept singing that chorus?

* DRINK UP the science:
Acrylamide is NOT known to occur as a natural product. pg 392 https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG...
but wait?! it does roast naturally .. roasting process had the most significant effect on acrylamide levels in natural coffee https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Cancer is just ...bad luck... these results suggest ... 0.81 correlation http://science.sciencemag.org/...
It's really safe to drink no warnings needed https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Data from the past 34 million years (which we have due to trapped atmosphere in bubbles formed on ice sheets)

34 million years, that's funny when oldest ice core is 2.7 million years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

And the CO2 was still low: " the ice revealed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels that did not exceed 300 parts per million, well below today’s levels"

Interesting thing: Wikipedia states "Melanoma has become more common since the 1960s in areas which are mostly populated with white people.[2][8]"

Come again? White people had white skin for at least 5800 years in the countries "mostly populated with white people". So what changed in the last 60 years or so? Not the skin, not the location, not the sunlight. Maybe the atmosphere? Maybe a change in sun exposure habits? Maybe the start in using suntan lotions?

I know TFA said in areas mostly populated with "white people" but a few things come to mind:

1) There are now a lot more white people in places like Australia and South Africa than there have been, historically.

2) Hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Is that what you meant by "Maybe the atmosphere?" If so, why not just say that. Thankfully it's getting smaller, largely due to the EPA banning CFCs. (I wish we had that EPA back. Twitler's EPA is a joke.)

3) And yeah, up to about 100 years ago a pasty white complexion was considered preferable to most whites; most wore big hats and long and long sleeved garments to minimize sun exposure. Even in places like India, pale complexions are considered desirable and those who can stay out of the sun do so, or use sunblock. (Some even bleach their skin to lighten it.)

Come again? White people had white skin for at least 5800 years in the countries "mostly populated with white people". So what changed in the last 60 years or so? Not the skin, not the location, not the sunlight. Maybe the atmosphere? Maybe a change in sun exposure habits? Maybe the start in using suntan lotions?

In 2017, Insider Edition used triplets' DNA samples to test several personal genomics companies. The results came back with differences over 10%. To put this in perspective, Chimpanzees and Bonobos have about a 99% genetic match with humans. Either these companies do not adhere to universal genetic testing standards, companies aren't testing accurately, or maybe those identical triplets are actually different species from one another.

Something else: only a court certified genetic expert could question this sort of evidence on the stand. But doing so could open up the floodgates of trouble for not just those labs, but law enforcement and the courts alike. I suspect they would rather find an innocent person guilty than question the validity of genetic profile matching.

--

https://www.insideedition.com/...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Sorry, but, "... hominims..." is wrong.

However, "hominin" (or at a stretch "hominid") would be correct. See the diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and see the original article that uses "hominin" liberally: http://science.sciencemag.org/...

Meh close enough, they sound alike! ; )

Sorry, but, "... hominims..." is wrong.

However, "hominin" (or at a stretch "hominid") would be correct. See the diagram at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and see the original article that uses "hominin" liberally: http://science.sciencemag.org/...

More importantly, are 90% of pharma projects unsuccessful?

Way more than 90% fail. But most fail early, before any clinical trials, and don't cost much. Of those that make it to clinical trials, 80-90% fail, depending on how you measure it. But clinical trials are run in phases, so a cancellation after "phase 1" means phases 2 and 3 are never run.

Citations:
The high price of failed clinical trials
Why too many clinical trials fail
A new look at clinical success rates

Or perhaps it's the massive energy released by local volcanic activity warming the region.

Everybody is joking about it (including me) and when you look at what robots do in a car factory, this does not seem to be such an effort. You place the things on the ground and the robot the does pre-designed movement. Done.

But what I think is interesting that the planning is done as well by the robot. I wonder if it uses the manual or just figures things out like a big puzzle, then programs itself to do what need to be done. As the main article is paywalled http://robotics.sciencemag.org... We can only guess. My guess is that it looks up what fits into what and that there are no parts left. As it takes 8 minutes, I am guessing it uses brute force. e.g. It starts with e,g a plank. That has 4 holes in it. It then takes another item and see if that fits. If not, go to the next piece. At a certain moment it will find a plank and a screw. That till it find 4 screws that fit. Now you have a plank with 4 screws sticking out of it.

Take the next object and see if that fits. At some point it does, And then at one moment it has either holes left, or items left that do not fit, so the calculations start from the beginning.

I can also imagine that the reason it can do some, but not all furniture is because it has no idea what to do if there are holes not used. e.g. as they are intended to connect a second part of a bookcase to it.

Thanks to the fact that it is paywalled, no idea if that is correct and we just make a bunch of jokes about it, instead of thinking about it.

To be accurate: there is a bacterium producing an enzyme (more like two than one as stated in the paper). An (bio-)enzyme is quite hard to produce outside of a living organism as any protein (hints: complexity, folding, post-tanscriptional/translation-modifications). The enzymes themselves are not considered as living but the bacterium is.

Same as the insulin is not living being but the bacteria genetically modified to mass-produce it are living.

either A) convert back to plastics (not sure how) or B) http://science.sciencemag.org/... ---> ethyl glycol ---> *burn* ---> Carbon Monoxide (a down hill raction) --->https://www.anl.gov/articles/new-leaf-scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide-back-fuel --- > methenol ---> burn in cars

Quick bit of research suggests it breaks down into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. http://science.sciencemag.org/.... The former is a precursor to the production of fresh PET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But you are arguing in favor of a longer and more detailed study. And while you do that study, people who might benefit from the drug, if it works, are suffering and dying.

OTOH, it might not work. Whoops!

There's no obvious way forwards when you're working in ignorance. I favor letting people into an experimental program with blatant warnings, and rules preventing any sponsor from getting more than cost recovery (and, of course, data). This would *NOT* be a double blind study, so it's less than perfectly useful. And that limitation means that there is likely to be a strong placebo effect, which needs to be factored into the evaluation.

I think you're presuming a much stronger understanding of medicine than we possess. I suggest that you follow http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... (Derek Lowe) for awhile.

If such a vacuum decay was limited by the speed of light then only such events occurring in our cosmic horizon would affect our region of space. The expansion of spacetime due to dark energy is carrying most nearby galaxies and the related space (anything not in the Local Group, so say goodbye to the Virgo Supercluster) out past our cosmic horizon.

There is some theory that states as black holes get very tiny, the extreme curvature of spacetime can cause vacuum collapse to be a much higher probability event, assuming we aren't already at the true vacuum state. This article talks about it, but seems to state that it must not be an actual issue since the universe is still here, but that relies on the assumption that such tiny black holes have already existed in our cosmic horizon. If the theory is true and no previous tiny black holes have existed, then collapse would occur once a macro-scale black hole decays to a small enough size due to Hawking radiation. The good news is that should be a looooooong time from now since the CMB is still causing black holes to get bigger.

Anti-GMO organizations like Greenpeace have come out against Golden Rice as viciously as if it were a Monsanto product:
http://thehill.com/opinion/hea...

And have actually destroyed test plots of it in the Philippines:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Now that Duterte is in office there, I'm hoping that next time the Luddites invade the test fields, he will machine-gun them rihgt there and let their bodies fertilize the plants.

Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.

What are you talking about? We've been genetically modifying plants for as long as there have been humans and it is fine. Yes we should be doing it, we will continue to do it, and the techniques for doing it are only going to get more effective. It will be effectively impossible to feed the human population without GMOs. It's not even a choice really.

I won't be satisfied about the safety of GMO until we've had a couple hundred years of informed consent trials.

So you are saying you'll never be satisfied. That isn't going to happen. Seven billion people on the planet, widespread use of GMOs using modern techniques for decades now (plus thousands of years of older techniques) and zero evidence of any negative nutritional effects across generations. If that sort of evidence isn't good enough for you then you will never be satisfied. The nutritional question is settled for all practical purposes and any negative health effects from them that might exist are clearly extremely subtle at worst. The experiment has already been run and the evidence seems clear that GMOs aren't a nutritional health risk either in the short or long term.

Now if you want to make an argument about the effects of GMOs on ecosystems being potentially harmful then you might have an argument. There the evidence is a lot less clear and there is clear evidence that use of GMOs (think roundup ready) influences our behavior in ways that have clear and demonstrable harms both direct and indirect.

Also, I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.

Your DNA is absolutely loaded with code from species that are not human. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around mixing genes from seemingly unrelated species isn't evidence of a problem. You talk about nature "allowing" things as if genetics is somehow planned. That's not how it works. Genetic code doesn't have an agenda beyond reproduction. Read The Selfish Gene sometime for a more eloquent argument.

I recently went through all of Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" columns (highly recommended for anyone with a sense of humor and an instinct for self-preservation), and in the aftermath spent some time reading some of his other articles. One in particular discusses the possibility of an automated chemist, performing reactions given a recipe. Today's article discusses this latest paper, which focuses on generating those recipes, and compares it to another AI approach previously covered.

Notably, Lowe focuses on the impact such developments will have on the field of chemistry, and compares it to the impact of the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov chess matches. In short, yes, the boring labor-intensive analytical jobs will be handed off to machines, and humans will take on the management role of deciding what new compounds society will need.

I recently went through all of Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" columns (highly recommended for anyone with a sense of humor and an instinct for self-preservation), and in the aftermath spent some time reading some of his other articles. One in particular discusses the possibility of an automated chemist, performing reactions given a recipe. Today's article discusses this latest paper, which focuses on generating those recipes, and compares it to another AI approach previously covered.

Notably, Lowe focuses on the impact such developments will have on the field of chemistry, and compares it to the impact of the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov chess matches. In short, yes, the boring labor-intensive analytical jobs will be handed off to machines, and humans will take on the management role of deciding what new compounds society will need.

I recently went through all of Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" columns (highly recommended for anyone with a sense of humor and an instinct for self-preservation), and in the aftermath spent some time reading some of his other articles. One in particular discusses the possibility of an automated chemist, performing reactions given a recipe. Today's article discusses this latest paper, which focuses on generating those recipes, and compares it to another AI approach previously covered.

Notably, Lowe focuses on the impact such developments will have on the field of chemistry, and compares it to the impact of the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov chess matches. In short, yes, the boring labor-intensive analytical jobs will be handed off to machines, and humans will take on the management role of deciding what new compounds society will need.

I recently went through all of Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" columns (highly recommended for anyone with a sense of humor and an instinct for self-preservation), and in the aftermath spent some time reading some of his other articles. One in particular discusses the possibility of an automated chemist, performing reactions given a recipe. Today's article discusses this latest paper, which focuses on generating those recipes, and compares it to another AI approach previously covered.

Notably, Lowe focuses on the impact such developments will have on the field of chemistry, and compares it to the impact of the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov chess matches. In short, yes, the boring labor-intensive analytical jobs will be handed off to machines, and humans will take on the management role of deciding what new compounds society will need.

You may find interesting: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

Reminds me of an old part of an old blog: Things I won't work with.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

I'm guessing something with fluoride chemistry:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

It's a really fun read about a shockingly horrible bit of chemistry done by our military science.

Reminds me of an old part of an old blog: Things I won't work with.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

I'm guessing something with fluoride chemistry:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

It's a really fun read about a shockingly horrible bit of chemistry done by our military science.

What’s Causing the Sharp Decline in Insects, and Why It Matters

Where have all the insects gone?

What you're writing is rather interesting in itself, but kind of misses the point here. You should go have a look at the paper and read the introduction. Especially the last paragraph:

"Here, we used vibration-induced perceptual movement illusions in a human bidirectional neural-machine interface to generate the kinesthetic sensations of complex synergistic grip movements. ..."

What the best way is to integrate man with machine (neurons to wires) is another subject, really. Eventually, they'll figure out the best way to do that, as well. This here is more on a fundamental level, namely about integrating the artificial limb into the human brain's body image. The brain has a surprising amount of plasticity, you just have to nudge it in the right direction, and these things will start feeling like the real deal.

Although it has to be said: the biological machinery attached to our bodies that makes our arms and hands is incredibly sophisticated. Mimicking it is no easy feat at all. It was both amazing and humbling to see back when I spent a little time working in that area.

(I'm the guy who posted below "This is new?")

If you look at the base data from the study, you can find the images for projected innovation at 2100 - it's not that much, mostly down at the end of the bay. Considering we are talking about nearly a hundred years for this change to occur there is a LOT of time to adapt - either by raising the land at risk (we are talking about just a meter of sea level change at worst in the most likely scenario), or building seawalls at the end of the bay the way the Netherlands has done.

San Francisco itself, is of course quite hilly as anyone who has ever visited knows, and is hardly impacted at all.

One final flaw in this study is the reoccurring flaw, they present a doomsday scenario that is "if nothing is done". But they totally do not account for the inevitable shift to solar/electric for power and transportation that will increase dramatically in the coming decades. This shifts all of the predictions to the low end in reality as the most likely scenario, by quite a lot in fact.

There is fascinating research to suggest that video (maybe even two channel video) is an essential part of human vision training. http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Well, it has a sufficient energy gradient to shoot out geysers (which have been shown to contain molecular hydrogen and organic molecules), so I'd say so.

You are overstating the case. Given all the objects we've had on Mars, it's probably too late to prevent contamination.

The Viking landers of the 1970s were the only missions to Mars ever to be completely cleaned to the highest standards of planetary protection. They were baked in a purpose-built giant oven, and the cost of doing so is thought to have been roughly 10% of the mission. Ever since then, says Conley, researchers have complained about the office, as if it exists solely to burden them and make their missions impossibly expensive. “People like to have a villain,” she says.

I'm skeptical that truly decontaminating a probe of all spores may be a pipe dream

But like Smith’s microbes, the samples that were subject to direct U.V. radiation were mostly killed. The few that managed to survive the vacuum of space for 18 months had undergone changes to the proteins associated with genetic expression. Their offspring also showed an even greater resistance to UV-C exposure, the most harmful category of U.V. radiation, than those in the control group on Earth. Nine years later, Venkat and the team are still trying to make sense of the data. “And what’s particularly interesting,” Smith says, “is that those that were alive from the ISS experiment also ended up showing a resistance to antibiotics.” The type of SNPs that changed the survivors from E-Mist were varied. Some experienced an A to a T swap, others a C to a T, and some of those were in cartridges that were exposed for different lengths of time to the sun. While both teams aren’t exactly sure what the genetic changes mean in either of the experiments, they suspect that they may be playing a role in their survival.

SpaceX has been very successful 3-D printing metal. For example, their SuperDraco engines are entirely 3-D printed. From what I have read and heard, they are able to do things with 3-D printing that are impossible any other way, including changing the properties of the metal based on location. Heating something to the melting point isn't necessary for strength (i.e. see friction stir welding). 3-D printing does not mean the parts are weak.

3-D printed parts can be made lighter and contain far more complexity than non-additive manufacturing methods due to being able to create shapes and cavities that would normally be very difficult if not impossible. Metals can also be mixed in ways that are not possible with forging or casting.

Could ultraviolet lamps slow the spread of flu?

This could make a big difference if it proves safe.

Skeptical science dot com? You might as well have posted from dailykos or Fox News for all those biased jerks are worth reading.

My comment stands. Oceans have continued to rise at same slow pace since last ice age (despite false claims from faked up pseudo science web sites).

Its a pop science, not pseudo-science site. Its accurate, but simplified, and its widely respected in the scientific community as a reliable and accurate public science site.

However. You want actual papers huh?

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~ste...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
http://www.pnas.org/content/pn...

I'm sure theses others, but those where just some of the references off the *very* page you dishonestly try to handwave as 'pseudoscience".

You can't just throw mud like that at widely respected sources of information without at least justifying who so much of the scientific community is wrong, but random AC on the internet is right

Link to paper.

Or yeah.http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393
Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees
Science 30 Jun 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1393-1395
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa1190

Damage confirmed
Early studies of the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on insect pollinators indicated considerable harm. However, lingering criticism was that the studies did not represent field-realistic levels of the chemicals or prevailing environmental conditions. Two studies, conducted on different crops and on two continents, now substantiate that neonicotinoids diminish bee health (see the Perspective by Kerr). Tsvetkov et al. find that bees near corn crops are exposed to neonicotinoids for 3 to 4 months via nontarget pollen, resulting in decreased survival and immune responses, especially when coexposed to a commonly used agrochemical fungicide. Woodcock et al., in a multicounty experiment on rapeseed in Europe, find that neonicotinoid exposure from several nontarget sources reduces overwintering success and colony reproduction in both honeybees and wild bees. These field results confirm that neonicotinoids negatively affect pollinator health under realistic agricultural conditions.

With a lot more details and illustrations. As the summary hinted, the big issue appears to be how close the wireless power coil has to be to the lens: 5mm in testing.

http://advances.sciencemag.org...

You can't fit a decent FM radio antenna inside a phone...

Yes you can.

FOOF

Was that just onomatopoeia or were you making a reference to Satan's kimchi (a.k.a. dioxygen difluoride)?

>> a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases

This line, to me, says there is an issue with science and government. The CDC believes republican congressmen will react badly to this list of science words; what I would like to hear is a statement from some group of Republican congressmen that it's not necessary. My impression is that their fears are well founded. Republicans in congress react to unpleasant scientific data by trying to deny the data and suppress further investigation:

http://science.sciencemag.org/...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

This anti-science, anti-evidence approach to policy is a disturbing, and I think recent, trend in Republican politicians. Newt Gingrich was a big science guy, for example. C Everett Koop, the surgeon general under Reagan who personally opposed abortion, refused to interfere with a study in the psychological harm of abortion to the mother.

I hope it's not every Republican, but science denial has become the consensus approach to policy of the Republican party.