Slashdot Mirror
The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know
First time accepted submitter burtosis writes Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). From FiveThirtyEight: "The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw. The biggest gap between scientists and the public came on issues that may elicit fear: the safety of genetically modified (or GMO) foods (37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists) and the use of pesticides in agriculture (28 percent of the public said foods grown with pesticides were safe to eat, versus 68 percent of scientists). There was also disagreement over the cause of climate change (50 percent of the public said it is mostly due to human activity, compared to 87 percent of scientists). Here’s a full list, via Pew Research Center, of the scientific issues the survey asked about."
(climate scientists paid to parrot big oil's talking points, for example),
Just checking, you _do_ know that big oil sponsors most climate research? The one that supports AGW?
The myth about thousands of dollars sponsoring skeptics being anywhere near the billions sponsoring human caused global warming is readily propagated here - but it seems no one ever verified it.
Instead of adding it all up over the last couple of decades, it would be more fair to look at the yearly budget. The budget for climate change science was about $2 billion in 2010, and on average somewhat less than in the years before that. That doesn't sound like a whole lot for a potential game changer.
That's not always correct. Roundup-ready crops sold by Monsanto (for example) are not resistant to pests, they are resistant to herbicides. They let you spray MORE, not less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
> A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research
Im staring at the Forbes report at http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.... Note that a lot of that money is involved in "clean" energy projects which have dual or triple use: reducing pollution, improving arable land, water management, emergency planning for coastal areas, and switching from unsustainable fuel resources to sustainable, less greenhouse gas producing fuels.
I'm also afraid you're comparing apples to oranges. Most of the federal budget is not "advertising" to compare to oil companies, it's a great deal of real work with multiple scientific. urban development, and economic uses. If you compare it to the amount of money oil companies spent on drilling for new oil or on research to expand their markets, you'd have a better scale.
That is true, but without understanding what the GAO report was covering it can be a bit misleading. Here is a bit of a graphic summary. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/...
First it is important to note the 106B was over like a 20 year period. It is also important to note, that 106B wasn't all for science (in fact only the minority of it was). That number was the full amount they could attribute towards any are of work on climate change. In the above link the break it down into science, technology, and international assistance. So this covers FAR more than what one would first think of if they were told 106B went to climate change research. Research into clean coal? That would be counted. Nuclear, that would be counted. Research into better batteries for electric cars, that is counted. Research in to solar/wind, that is counted.
You can dig into the reports further to get a more detailed understanding. The point is simply saying climate change got 106B may sound like "oh my god climate researchers are getting rich!!!!". However, when you understand what the report really covers (long period of time and only a small portion goes to what you'd normally thing of as climate research) it does change the perspective a bit.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Yes, but generally any scientist* trusts the scientific method and experimental evidence over other methods of coming to a conclusion. There are a few exceptions with biases (climate scientists paid to parrot big oil's talking points, for example), but generally scientists try to discover the truth, whether or not it conforms with their world beliefs.
No.
The book 'Big Fat Surprise" in its explanation of how the dietary guidelines of how a low fat diet isn't backed by good science, showed how the scientific process was derailed by egos of scientists, eminent people, scientific politics, and group think in the scientific community - as well as lots of money from the big food companies.
GMOs usually need far fewer pesticides sprayed on them, that is pretty much the point of them most of the time.
This depends entirely on the modification. The two most popular GMOs are "roundup ready" and "Bt." Roundup-ready plants are resistant to glyphosate, which allows farmers to use higher amounts of the herbicide. "Bt" plants produce their own insecticide, which allows farmers to reduce their external application of such agents. As glyphosate resistance transfers to weed plants, biotech companies have begun developing resistance to other herbicides: the next step in the evolutionary arms race.
You sez:
I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person
Okay, as a person of Science, lemme try ask you, a fellow Scientist, the following ...
1. How do you know your view is "FAR more informed than the average person"?
2. You said you were "FAR more informed", so ...
2a. Who was the one informed you?
2b. And how do you know what you have been informed is correct?
No.
BS.
http://arstechnica.com/science...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Exactly this.
What's funny is that when Climate Change Skeptics, the Koch Brothers, funded their own study and planted an outspoken critic of climate change science as the director of the research, that skeptic ended up becoming a believer and published an Op-Ed in the NYT explaining how wrong he had been to not accept the science.
But somehow people still find a way to rationalize it all away as just the invention of a bunch of wealthy limousine-riding scientists keeping down those poor, defenseless oil companies.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The only issue there is that if pollen blows into my field, I don't think it is reasonable that I have to pay you a licensing fee.
Take for example a bull that breaks through a fence and breeds with some of my cattle. Do I have to pay a breeding fee for you bull's "service" to my herd? No.
And the thing is that Monsanto has done that in the past...
I believe you've been misled. If you can cite and example that'd be great. The one that got me up in arms was back when Percy Schmeiser lost in court against Monsanto for exactly this. His case was famous at the time, until I brought it up with my family that actually are farming. He's basically the only case I'm aware of where the claim of cross pollination led to a lawsuit by Monsanto. The truth though, is that Percy collected his own seed from his crop normally. Then, his neighbour planted round-up ready Canola beside his own field. Contrary to the story that you and I are told by the GMO fear mongers, his field was NOT accidentally contaminated. Percy actually went along the edge of his field that was shared with his neighbour, and sprayed the entire strip with round up, killing everything he planted but keeping enough of seeds that made it to the edge of his field from his neighbour's. Percy then collected the surviving plants to plant as seed. He deliberately and purposely set out to acquire the GMO seed and went to extreme lengths to do so.
> The argument is "those evil, rich oil companies have so much more money to throw at creating biased research studies!"
That is a subtle mis-statement. The argument is "those evil, rich oil companies have so much more incentive to create biased research studies."
The most extreme interpretation of the GAO report says there has been an average of $5B/year of revenue aka incentive for 'global warming industry.' Compare that to the oil industry, which at current numbers (90m barrels per day @ $45/barrel, ignoring other forms of petroleum) has about $4B/day of revenue.
I can second you anecdotes with my own. Having grown up on farms I've had the exact same experience. I went off to university when Monsanto was just rolling out round-up ready Canola. I got pretty worked up over their patent policies and was eager to reminisce with all the guys back home who where farming. Turns out universally they were all more than happy to buy Monsanto's seeds as it just made them far more money than other approach. More over, as pointed up thread, the only ones Monstanto was suing were guys trying to use Monsanto's seed for free, and the guys willing to buy the seed had no sympathy.
Why did the courts believe that those seeds were not his? They were on his property. If those seeds were not backed by a state issued monopoly (patent), there is no issue what seeds he wants to collect on HIS property.
Which is a totally valid complaint. The courts and legal system disagree and belief that patents should be allowed in this case though.
The point I was drawing was that Percy didn't accidentally start planting the patented seeds, he deliberately and intentionally set out to get his hands on the patented seed instead of his own that he'd been growing before. It was NOT, as has been falsely portrayed, a suit against some poor guy that tried to replant his own seed that got contaminated against his wishes.