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."
Sterile plants are almost never used.
Monsanto developed that system and last I checked they had NEVER used it for any regular seeds. It was only used in test fields to prevent genes escaping into the wild during testing.
My view on gene patenting is that any natural gene should not be patent able but the process for insertion should be. However, for any custom developed gene that should be patent able.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
This I agree 100% with.
This is why I can't support the GMO labeling laws I keep seeing. So many just want to label something as GMO which is just based on fear and does not lead to any understanding.
For ALL kinds of food (organic, gmo, etc) I want to know exactly what is in the food. I want to know the DNA sequence so I can search it or write an app to test it against things i don't want. That is true for GMO and Organic foods. Remember that pink grapefruit was a random mutation. There was no guarantee it would be safe. Same with organic certified chemical mutagens used on organic foods.
I want all food help to the same high standard. Not this fear based approach that thinks that GMO is different.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
I am an engineer with chemical and biological background. I've seen more than I want to in commercialized conclusions by PhD scientists that were really just hired guns, corporate and academic. In some cases they got unhired because I proved things otherwise and showed long stretches of repeated, highly biased results.
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
No one has genomic techniques to successfully create a protein from whole cloth.
That used to be true, but science marches on...
http://www.princeton.edu/main/...
I've read a lot of journal articles, and granted, they arne't Science or Nature since I don't have expertese in those fields, but more like IEEE transactions. In those journals, I'm always shocked as to the piss poor quality of the a lot of the articles. And honestly, some of the most interesting articles I've read weren't in top tier journals. They went against the mainstream and IEEE wouldn't touch them. If you think groupthink isn't a thing in science, you're massively naive.
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. What is more, they'll have funny genes that will not only not fertilize my crops but will literally make them sterile. There are terminator genes that won't breed true. And so that bull that hopped the fence not only bred with my cattle but effectively implanted defective genetic material that will miscarry.
In regards to corn specifically, the GMO corn should probably not produce pollen. Or if it does, that pollen has to not screw up non-GMO corn and has to not incur any fee to Monsanto etc.
If a farmer is just trying to grow his crops and wants nothing to do with the whole thing, these GMO crops often make that very difficult. If the GMO crops don't spread their DNA to non-GMO crops then they're fine. I really don't have a problem with GMO in theory. The issue is that in practice it tends to have a lot of problems that are not okay.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.
It may be an extremely small sample and anecdotal, but it makes a lot of sense. I recall having small gardens growing up, and we always bought seeds every year. Plus, farmers want consistent crops every year and better yields if they can, they don't want some wild child of something they started growing 10 years ago when Monsanto has created a new product that makes more money for them.
I would think a sterile plant would be a good thing for modern farmers, who want's corn stalks popping up in a soy bean field. Farmers rotate their crops, I used to remember scenes like this growing up. I don't see them as often now.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
There is no health benefit to taking a perfectly useful plant and adding more poisons to it.
There could be, if the poison displaces a chemical pesticide that is more harmful. Bt corn is an example.
We already grow more than enough food.
Then higher productivity can allow us to grow the same food on fewer acres, leaving more fallow land for wildlife.