Why aren't independent studies being done to validate the coporporate studies? The only study that WAS done found BIG problems. Why haven't you heard about it? Why haven't other researchers tried to duplicate the results?
Why is the 'infertile' herbicide resistent canola spreading like dandelions? How will this affect the wild strains? What about farmers who get it in their fields and have to pay monsanto because they own the patents?
"If there is a group out there with legitimate, researched, specific scientic concerns,..."
It's difficult to argue with Monsantos research when independent research ISN'T FUNDED.
Seems like an important issue to at least look at?
Switching from a conventional strain of a plant to a GMO strain is a minor change compared to switching to a whole new species of plant.
Huh?! Switching to a genetic strain that doesn't exist anywhere on the planet and didn't evolve into its present form is a minor change?
Did you know that 'infertile' genetically modified canola is spreading everywhere and quickly becoming Canadas biggest pest weed? Do you realize that this will infect the wild strains? Genetic pollution.
Now, what if it's dangerous to eat after all?
Did you know that the only independent study that looked into this question found that it WAS dangerous to eat? Look it up.
(GM Potatoes (with pesticide genetically added) vs. regular potatoes (with same amount of pesticide manually added). One of these meals was found to be dangerous.)
"Here's the thing: Mutated DNA is not going to screw you up if you eat it."
Quite a sweeping statement. You have some basis for it I assume? Read about any
independent studies? Or just relying on common sense?:)
From reading some of the posts, you'd think that stomach acid could break down any material into its atomic components...
"...The story begins in August 1998, when Pusztai, a scientist at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, appeared on the British television program The World in Action to report that transgenic foods (foods that are bioengineered to include a gene from another species) may be unsafe. His research indicated that rats fed transgenic potatoes suffered from damaged immune systems and stunted growth.
Pusztai fed the rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant. Lectins are sugar-binding proteins that can provide protection from insects, nematodes and some diseases. According to Pusztai, who is one of the world's foremost authorities on lectins, the rats who ate these hightech potatoes showed evidence of organ damage and poor brain development. This experiment was the first independent study-one not sponsored by a biotech corporation-to examine the effects of bioengineered food on mammals.
"We are assured that this is absolutely safe and that no harm can come to us from eating [genetically engineered food]. But if you gave me the choice now, I wouldn't eat it," he said on TV, warning that the food industry was treating the public like "unwitting guinea pigs."
In an attempt to quell the resulting public furor, Rowett Institute Director Philip James, who had approved Pusztai's TV appearance, said the research results didn't exist. He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data. Pusztai, who under the terms of his contract was gagged, was unable to respond to his critics.
The biotech PR apparatus went into effect on both sides of the Atlantic. Val Giddings, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in Washington, applauded Pusztai's dismissal. Speaking to Biotechnology Newswatch, an industry journal, he damned the press for not being more skeptical of Pusztai's statements, pointing out that his results had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "This is a study that should never have seen the light of day," he said.
At Monsanto, the only corporation producing transgenic potatoes, spokesman Alyssa Hollier told Biotechnology Newswatch, "This really has nothing to do with us," adding that the company's transgenic potatoes, which are different than those used in the study, are "not approved in Europe right now." In February, however, it came out that the Rowett Institute had received a $224,000 grant from Monsanto prior to Pusztai's interview and subsequent firing.
In March, the Rowett Institute released an internal audit, which revealed that Pusztai actually had completed the research he referred to in his TV appearance. Apparently, the dispute over the August program was due to an inaccurate press release that the Rowett Institute-without Pusztai's approval-had issued prior to the program that referred to a completely different experiment.
That same month, the institute, in response to press criticism and an emerging House of Commons inquiry was in the offing, released Pusztai from the terms of his contract that had gagged him, and allowed him access to his research data.
The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific body, entered the debate in May. Examining neither the material nor the research data submitted by Pusztai, a society review panel nonetheless deemed his work "flawed" and concluded:
"We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from genetically engineered] potatoes."
In the wake of that review, the Independent reported that the Blair government had launched a "cynical public relations exercise" to "convince the public that it is determined to protect them, and the environment, against risks from genetically modified crops" while the government's "real intention is to buy time for industry to develop the crops." The Independent based its report on a confidential memo from the office of Jack Cunningham, the minister responsible for coordinating the nation's genetic engineering policy. The memo said in part, "The Office of Science and Technology is compiling a list of eminent scientists to be available for
broadcast interviews and to author articles. These individuals should be alerted and be prepared to offer comment." The memo goes on to say that the attacks on Pusztai by the Royal Society provide "a platform for them to trail the Government's Key Messages."
Pusztai pressed his case in the media. "I am in a situation I cannot get out of now," he told the Sunday Herald, a Scottish paper. "I am the only one with data that shows there are problems. I have a choice: apologize for being incorrect or keep going, and I know I am correct."
Then Prince Charles entered the fray. A longtime critic of bioengineering, in December 1998 he had questioned the safety of bioengineered food on his royal Web site. According to the Sunday Express, Blair, in a highly unusual move, phoned Buckingham Palace "to advise the Prince to withdraw the Web site comments [and... to refrain from any public comments." The prince refused and, following the release of the Royal Society review of Pusztai's work and the leak of the confidential memorandum, Charles published an article in the Daily Mail that asked: "Do existing laws protect us? Why are the rules for approving genetically modified foods so much less stringent than new medicines using the same technology?... What sort of world do we want to live in? Are we going to allow the industrialization of life itself-redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience?" Soon after that he met privately with Pusztai and observed that he had been "cruelly" treated.
The controversy died down, only to blow up again this fall when The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, published a peer-reviewed paper Pusztai had co-authored. He reported that rats fed transgenic potatoes with the added snowdrop lectin experienced a thickening in their small intestines, which indicates an adverse reaction to the transgenic food. This change was not observed in two control groups, one of which was fed plain potatoes and the other potatoes mixed with the same lectin. Pusztai's study raised the possibility that this thickening was caused not by the added lectin but by the process of genetic-engineering itself.
Indeed, Pusztai suspects, though he has no proof since his research was halted, that the problems observed in rats fed the transgenic potatoes were caused not by the added snowdrop lectin, but by the genes that were used in transferring the snowdrop lectin to the potato. "All the presently used genetically modified material has been created by essentially the same technology," he told the Sunday Herald. "If there really is a problem, it won't just apply to the potatoes but probably to all other transgenes." The implications are enormous. In 1999, one-third of the corn and one-half of the soybeans planted in the United States were genetically engineered.
The condemnation from the pro-genetic engineering scientific establishment was immediate. The Royal Society accused The Lancet of being "breathtakingly arrogant" for publishing Pusztai's research. The Guardian reported that two days before the publication of the Pusztai paper, Lancet editor Richard Horton had been warned by a senior member of the Royal Society, British Academy of Medical Sciences President Richard Lachmann, that his job would be in jeopardy if he published Pusztai's research. Horton told the Guardian he was called "immoral" and told that publication of the paper would "have implications for his personal position as editor." Lachmann, who denies the charges, is on the scientific advisory board of the pharmaceutical corporation SmithKline Beecham, which is heavily invested in biotech ventures.
The most benign interpretation of Pusztai's research is that the problem could be specific to the experimental transgenic potatoes he studied. More ominously, the adverse effects on the rats could be caused by the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter, a marker widely used in genetic engineering. "The study that Pusztai did should be redone to tease out what exactly is going on with the potatoes," says Michael Hansen, a research associate at Consumers Union. "But for the folks that criticize it, his study is still a much better-designed study than the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed literature that deal with Round-Up Ready soybeans or BT corn. Pusztai's are the kinds of experiments that need to be done with engineered foods."
Yet no such independent, government-supported research into the effects of genetically engineered foods on mammals is now being carried out in either the United Kingdom or the United States, where they have been given a clean bill of health by the Food and Drug Administration. Responding to a letter to the editor from Lachmann in The Lancet, Pusztai writes, "Lachmann says the experiments need to be repeated. We would be happy to oblige. If our experiments are so poor why have they not been repeated in the past 16 months? It was not we who stopped the work."
Could it be that the biotech industry fears the results of independent research could erase its enormous investment in this untested technology ?
"We don't need genetically modified food in this country," Pusztai told the Sunday Herald. "But British politicians can only see profits. They want a share, and to hell with the consequences. It is a short-sighted policy. It happened with the BSE [Mad Cow] crisis, and make no mistake-it is happening again."
Emphasis was all mine. This was from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/NoSmallPo tatoes.html
I read about the story somewhere else, couldn't find the link, but found a similar story here.
This also made the list of the top 25 unreported news stories. (You mean the TV doesn't tell me everything I need to know?!)
I agree completely with your main point by the way.
Well, I'm surfing at +3 but...
on
Andromeda
·
· Score: 1
I like the show. I pretty much agree, some shows are embarrassing, but luckily others manage to push my 'interest' buttons.
Here's hoping they continue to improve in the next couple years. (Pleeeease learn from Voyager!)
From your response, I find it difficult to believe that you even know what an allegory is, or have any idea why an author would choose to write one.
Did you know the bible is largely allegorical? In ancient times, spiritual teachings were often encoded into allegorical stories, preserving their secrets from the 'profane', and protecting the person carrying them from persecution. (Many other reasons why allegories are useful and powerful devices...)
It's clear to me now why the ancients used such a device: it works. When shown a rather obvious allegory such as 2001, people not only refuse to believe it, but insist that it's a figment of the imagination and that the person making the claim is a 'pompous ass'.
Perhaps this is the result of hundreds of years of social conditioning, with the church 'inisiting' that the tall tales they teach are meant to be taken literally.
August 16, 1964: We've also got the name of our hero at last -- Alex Bowman. Hurrah!
October 15, 1965: Stan has decided to kill off all the crew of Discovery and leave Bowman only. Drastic, but it feels right. After all, Odysseus was the sole survivor...
Proves what? That they were trying to make the plot more consistent with the odyssey, not that they hadn't decided on the allegory when the name 'Bowman' was chosen.
Do you really think Kubrik and Clarke spent all their time working subtle symbolism into every detail of the movie?
First, it may surprise you that some writers/artists enjoy using symbolism, allegories, word play, anagrams etc. Now try to think of their possible functions in a work of art...
Second, how do you think one goes about making a good story and getting the visuals right? Do you think good stories are conjured out of thin air? Do programmers write every line of a new program from scratch?
Now look at the practical side of the creative process. What should we call the monolith? What does the space ship that goes to the moon look like? Is it too hard to believe that Kubric would go back to the 'source' material for inspiration? I mean, why use something arbitrary when you have the opportunity to attach symbolic significance that's in tune with the work as a whole?
If you really need your hand held, consider the hidden cheats or secret rooms common in video games. That's kinda like what Kubric was doing with 2001.:P
As far as NO MEAT and bathroom tiles, as Wheat was trying to point out, these are minor conjectures that appear to fit the overall model. See comment #122. My take on Cliffs review: I didn't understand most of it and these two lines in the book were dumb.
The authors mistake in his response: overestimating his audience. How he could make such a mistake after reading the initial review and subsequent responses is beyond me. To Wheat I say: the education system is working magic, but should be renamed to more accurately reflect its function.
...they are being bashed for not providing a nurturing enough environiment. if you were under this kind of bombardment at work, you'd probably scream about the death of common sense and eventually give notice.
Maybe that's what kids in school are already doing: screaming about the utter lack of common sense! Except they can't give notice! They're stuck and nobody is listening!
When obviously smart kids with good parents start screaming, teachers get confused because it never occurs to them to question the education system itself! It's always got to be *somebodys* fault, the kids fault, the parents fault...
The school system is a designed structure. Maybe it's time people took a hard look at the system we've designed for our kids grow up in.
Remember the "face" on Mars? That one was very effectively debunked with the MGS images.
Actually, the image that supposedly debunked the "face" was doctored by NASA. They subsequently released an undoctored version that still looks like a face to me, despite the angle of the photo, and despite the less than ideal lighting...
If NASA really wanted (or were able) to debunk these theories, they'd take a number of images of the face, different angles at different times of day. Then they'd release them without the heavy processing, the way MGS pics are usually released.
NASAs resistence and obfuscation regarding the face has cultivated an air of mystery and suspicion.
...There was no due process. There was no search for understanding. There was no compassion... The school administrators that deal with disciplinary problems deal with guns, drugs, and lewd conduct all day. They treat the computer people, generally meeker and milder and more intelligent, the same as everyone else... We're usually over active and very curious.
You sound like a rich kid who broke the law. "They're treating me like a common criminal!" Oh, how awful for you!
Yet despite your myopia, you have a very good point. Maybe you shouldn't have been treated that way because you were curious. Maybe nobobdy should be treated that way because they're curious. Just so happens you're curiousity is usually considered acceptable. What about kids who are curious about social structures, kids who challenge authority? Should their curiousity be suppressed? What kind of implicit lesson is being taught here? Are schools training students not to challenge authority?
What is the solution?
First, define the problem. How are schools structured? What kinds of behaviours do they encourage? In other words, what structural lessons are being taught? Is obedience favoured over autonomous responsibility? Is rote memorization and regurgitation favoured over creative, independent, and critical thought?
When kids start killing each other and themselves at school, it's time for a critical look at the school system.
Lethargic living can add years to yawns
Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 4/19/01
Lazy is good. Lazy is happy. Go on. Be lazy.
That is the advice of one Peter Axt, a researcher with the Fulda University of Applied Sciences in Germany, who announced yesterday that "aimless sloth" was the secret to health, happiness and a long life. A very long life.
He pities virtuous joggers, frantic workaholics, determined dieters. The tidiers, the cleaners, the fussers, the preeners -- they are only running toward an early demise, he says.
"People who would rather laze in a hammock instead of running a marathon, or who take a midday nap instead of playing squash have a better chance of living into old age," Mr. Axt said.
His newly published study, "On the Joy of Laziness," is somewhere between Zen philosophy and an old wives tale, extolling the virtues of serenity, sleeping late and ignoring the garbage until it "builds its own eco- system."
Mr. Axt, who has already authored the books "Just Stay Young" and "Eat Yourself Slim" is convinced that humans have only been allotted so much energy. Why squander it on, say, aerobics?
"Research shows that people who run long distances into their 50s are using up energy they need for other purposes," he said. "They suffer memory loss. They risk premature senility."
And for heavens sake, sleep. Mr. Axt said that people who bolt from their beds at an early hour remain frazzled the day long. A leisurely stroll meets his approval, though, as does gentle dieting. He offers a prescription, in fact, for the general population. "Waste half your free time," Mr. Axt said. "Just enjoy lazing around."
(snip)...
The school system itself is to blame. It is cruel and unusual punishment, aimed not at criminals, but children.
Most think our schools are good and necessary simply because they are too ignorant to consider the structural implications, nor do they have the faculties to imagine an alternative. This has to do with their lack of an education. In that respect, the education system works: people LEARN to be intellectually apathetic. The question is: who does it work for?
Children, trapped in classrooms, start to pick on other children, simply to relieve the boredom. Occasionally the victims, feeling they can't escape, freak out. I can see how these kids might use video games to drive their fantasies of revenge. But it's easy to the blame video games. And it's easy to blame "mental illness". It's alot harder to question some of our most basic assumptions about learning and discipline. After all, if I create an unhealthy environment for you to grow up in, am I not to blame if you become mentally ill as a result?
Kids are shooting each other at school! And it boggles my mind that nobody even considers taking a hard look at this bizarre system we've created.
Re:OT: tagline response
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 1
"I find it interesting that you would blame the courts and not the half of the populace who didn't bother to vote at all."
People have the right not to vote. Besides, this kind of situation could arise regardless of how many people voted, since the issue is about counting the votes that WERE cast.
When you say 'blame', isn't the writer blaming the court for making a decision that is not consistent with legal precedent? Or are you implying another sort of blame?
When the writer suggests that the voters were fucked, do you think he meant that ALL the voters were fucked?
But the thing is, there's nothing stopping farmers from using a thousand other varieties of seeds.
Yes, but there's no way to prevent the spread of monsanto genetics!
Imagine if I buy and plant some monsanto seeds in your neighborhood. Next year, after the pollen from my crop has *infected/fertalized* approx 1% of your crop (plants have sex too you know), I can sue you for not burning your fields.
Remember, monsanto owns and licences the *genetics*. If your canola gets frisky with monsanto canola, monsanto owns the offspring. When those seeds plant themselves into your field, you have a choice - remove them, pay up or get sued.
I'm talking about the whole history of the christian religion, from Constantine issuing edicts to persecute the Hellenists, all the way to the burning of Beatles albums. In other words, knowledge is still burned today in Christs name, even material as non threatening as pop music.
I just used the term 'fanatical monks' because I wanted to play on your use of the word 'fanatical'.
True, the monks you speak of did preserve knowledge, but from whom? I mean, it's one thing to recognize an oasis in a desert of ignorance, but one must ask: how did things get so dry in the first place?
"However this assumes that if a religious organization were somehow proven to be fraudulent, it would be conclusive evidence to the fraud of Christ. Shakey at best. Also, any example of myths predating life events of Christ proves His nonexistance. I've seen that one before too."
Well, the two in combination work well together, since the only evidence of a historical Christ was written by said fraudulent organization, based (sometimes word for word) on earlier myths. Theses myths are well known to be allegories for the sun and stars.
"Pious Fraud" was the term invented by the Church to describe the enormous amount of plagiarism and fraud by the 'authors' of Christian texts including the numerous reworkings of the bible, adding historical details etc.
Well, I've read her book, and its loaded with references, alot of it from the church itself, which has on occasion admitted the preexistence of the christian fable. The explanation: the devil got their first to try to fool christians. Ha ha.
Also, ever heard of 'pious fraud'?
I'm still studying of course. It was life changing for me in that I suddenly became interested in the histories and evolutions of religious organizations, along with the relationship between the gods and the stars which I find endlessly fascinating.
By the way, the author, who uses the pseudonym Acharya S. is a mythologist, archeologist, historian and linguist. I've taken some time to check some of her claims in the essay, and so far everything has checked out.
Oh, and when you say 'biased', do you include anyone who has formed an opinion (based on their research) that is contrary to what you want to beleive? I mean, shouldn't you do some research yourself before you start slinging ad hominems?
I used to believe something similar. However, I was just reinventing Jesus to suit my own sensibilities. I'm just getting into all this, so maybe you could share your source with me, and I'll be sure to look into it. Here's what I've learned so far:
The early Christians were not Jewish. The Old Testament was added later by the Romans, along with corroborating details in the NT. (The OT is a very effective tool for facilitating social control as it stresses obedience and fear.) And many of the early Christian Gnostics (including Marcion, who compiled the first NT) opposed the notion of a historical Christ. You can corroborate this by reading the counter arguments made by early Church fathers who were constantly having to defend the notion.
To quote from Acharya's book:
"'The forged New Testament booklets and the foolish writings of the Fathers, are the sole 'evidence' we have for the alleged facts and doctrines of our most holy Faith,' as, adds Wheless, is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself.
"As it is said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'; yet, no proof of any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming."
You can bring a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
In fact, if you try to force feed knowledge to people, and try to force them to think, they will try even harder to resist. If you do it long enough (say... from early childhood to adulthood) the resistance will probably become habitual.
There's boatloads of research on this and other aspects of the learning process that are ignored by both the education system and educators alike.
"I'm pretty sure "Christianity" is the antithesis of what Christ wanted."
Here you assume incorrectly that there ever was a man named Christ who walked the earth. You are obviosly not pro church, but you will still agree to one of the churches most basic tenets. This shows the success the church has had in shaping the beliefs of our society. Even the churches opponents argue within the framework crafted by the church.
I urge you to read the following essay. I'm not christian, never have been, and my life was still forever changed by the thorough and fearless debunking found at:
Reading the original post again, if I parse it this way: "People who present themselves as free thinkers or are perceived to be free thinkers can in reality be more conformist than most", I would agree. In other words, don't judge a book by its cover.:)
But I took the word 'nominal' to be redundant, which is where I erred. I see now why you focused on the word 'can'.
Regarding the approach issue, I then went on to try to make a clear distinction between an act of conformity and an act of free thought, which I think is relevant, as an aside at least.
Nominal "free-thinking radicals" can be just as conformist....
Not true. One can not be a free thinker and be a conformist at the same time. The difference is in the approach. I'm making a distinction between processes, with appearances being irrelevant. (I agree that many apparent 'freethinkers' are simply conforming to their subculture or niche like you pointed out.)
You, on the other hand, appear to be asserting that their appearance necessarily implies that they are less conformist than the rest of society. For instance, you say "Internally, the reasoning process itself is non conformist". Perhaps you mean to say "can be non conformist".
No, I am saying that conformers vs free thinkers has nothing to do with appearances and everything to do with how one approaches a situation, which is process related.
It's been my experience that a large number of these rebellious-types are some of the least intellectually flexible, most conformist (within their little niches) of the lot.
I agree. But I wasn't making distinctions between mainstream conformists and subculture/alternative/niche conformists. I was distinguishing between conformists and free thinkers.
It might be useful to distinguish between apparent conformity (usually an externally applied label based on appearance) and real conformity, which is a way of approaching things, or a behaviour. Free thinking is a different approach or behaviour. Thus it is possible to be a free thinker while still appearing in every way to conform.
Slashdot Mirror
My concerns:
Why aren't independent studies being done to validate the coporporate studies? The only study that WAS done found BIG problems. Why haven't you heard about it? Why haven't other researchers tried to duplicate the results?
Why is the 'infertile' herbicide resistent canola spreading like dandelions? How will this affect the wild strains? What about farmers who get it in their fields and have to pay monsanto because they own the patents?
"If there is a group out there with legitimate, researched, specific scientic concerns,..."
It's difficult to argue with Monsantos research when independent research ISN'T FUNDED.
Seems like an important issue to at least look at?
Does this make me a luddite?
Switching from a conventional strain of a plant to a GMO strain is a minor change compared to switching to a whole new species of plant.
Huh?! Switching to a genetic strain that doesn't exist anywhere on the planet and didn't evolve into its present form is a minor change?
Did you know that 'infertile' genetically modified canola is spreading everywhere and quickly becoming Canadas biggest pest weed? Do you realize that this will infect the wild strains? Genetic pollution.
Now, what if it's dangerous to eat after all?
Did you know that the only independent study that looked into this question found that it WAS dangerous to eat? Look it up.
(GM Potatoes (with pesticide genetically added) vs. regular potatoes (with same amount of pesticide manually added). One of these meals was found to be dangerous.)
"Here's the thing: Mutated DNA is not going to screw you up if you eat it."
:)
... to refrain from any public comments." The prince refused and, following the release of the Royal Society review of Pusztai's work and the leak of the confidential memorandum, Charles published an article in the Daily Mail that asked: "Do existing laws protect us? Why are the rules for approving genetically modified foods so much less stringent than new medicines using the same technology? ... What sort of world do we want to live in? Are we going to allow the industrialization of life itself-redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience?" Soon after that he met privately with Pusztai and observed that he had been "cruelly" treated.
o tatoes.html
Quite a sweeping statement. You have some basis for it I assume? Read about any
independent studies? Or just relying on common sense?
From reading some of the posts, you'd think that stomach acid could break down any material into its atomic components...
"...The story begins in August 1998, when Pusztai, a scientist at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, appeared on the British television program The World in Action to report that transgenic foods (foods that are bioengineered to include a gene from another species) may be unsafe. His research indicated that rats fed transgenic potatoes suffered from damaged immune systems and stunted growth.
Pusztai fed the rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant. Lectins are sugar-binding proteins that can provide protection from insects, nematodes and some diseases. According to Pusztai, who is one of the world's foremost authorities on lectins, the rats who ate these hightech potatoes showed evidence of organ damage and poor brain development. This experiment was the first independent study-one not sponsored by a biotech corporation-to examine the effects of bioengineered food on mammals.
"We are assured that this is absolutely safe and that no harm can come to us from eating [genetically engineered food]. But if you gave me the choice now, I wouldn't eat it," he said on TV, warning that the food industry was treating the public like "unwitting guinea pigs."
In an attempt to quell the resulting public furor, Rowett Institute Director Philip James, who had approved Pusztai's TV appearance, said the research results didn't exist. He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data. Pusztai, who under the terms of his contract was gagged, was unable to respond to his critics.
The biotech PR apparatus went into effect on both sides of the Atlantic. Val Giddings, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in Washington, applauded Pusztai's dismissal. Speaking to Biotechnology Newswatch, an industry journal, he damned the press for not being more skeptical of Pusztai's statements, pointing out that his results had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "This is a study that should never have seen the light of day," he said.
At Monsanto, the only corporation producing transgenic potatoes, spokesman Alyssa Hollier told Biotechnology Newswatch, "This really has nothing to do with us," adding that the company's transgenic potatoes, which are different than those used in the study, are "not approved in Europe right now." In February, however, it came out that the Rowett Institute had received a $224,000 grant from Monsanto prior to Pusztai's interview and subsequent firing.
In March, the Rowett Institute released an internal audit, which revealed that Pusztai actually had completed the research he referred to in his TV appearance. Apparently, the dispute over the August program was due to an inaccurate press release that the Rowett Institute-without Pusztai's approval-had issued prior to the program that referred to a completely different experiment.
That same month, the institute, in response to press criticism and an emerging House of Commons inquiry was in the offing, released Pusztai from the terms of his contract that had gagged him, and allowed him access to his research data.
The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific body, entered the debate in May. Examining neither the material nor the research data submitted by Pusztai, a society review panel nonetheless deemed his work "flawed" and concluded:
"We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from genetically engineered] potatoes."
In the wake of that review, the Independent reported that the Blair government had launched a "cynical public relations exercise" to "convince the public that it is determined to protect them, and the environment, against risks from genetically modified crops" while the government's "real intention is to buy time for industry to develop the crops." The Independent based its report on a confidential memo from the office of Jack Cunningham, the minister responsible for coordinating the nation's genetic engineering policy. The memo said in part, "The Office of Science and Technology is compiling a list of eminent scientists to be available for
broadcast interviews and to author articles. These individuals should be alerted and be prepared to offer comment." The memo goes on to say that the attacks on Pusztai by the Royal Society provide "a platform for them to trail the Government's Key Messages."
Pusztai pressed his case in the media. "I am in a situation I cannot get out of now," he told the Sunday Herald, a Scottish paper. "I am the only one with data that shows there are problems. I have a choice: apologize for being incorrect or keep going, and I know I am correct."
Then Prince Charles entered the fray. A longtime critic of bioengineering, in December 1998 he had questioned the safety of bioengineered food on his royal Web site. According to the Sunday Express, Blair, in a highly unusual move, phoned Buckingham Palace "to advise the Prince to withdraw the Web site comments [and
The controversy died down, only to blow up again this fall when The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, published a peer-reviewed paper Pusztai had co-authored. He reported that rats fed transgenic potatoes with the added snowdrop lectin experienced a thickening in their small intestines, which indicates an adverse reaction to the transgenic food. This change was not observed in two control groups, one of which was fed plain potatoes and the other potatoes mixed with the same lectin. Pusztai's study raised the possibility that this thickening was caused not by the added lectin but by the process of genetic-engineering itself.
Indeed, Pusztai suspects, though he has no proof since his research was halted, that the problems observed in rats fed the transgenic potatoes were caused not by the added snowdrop lectin, but by the genes that were used in transferring the snowdrop lectin to the potato. "All the presently used genetically modified material has been created by essentially the same technology," he told the Sunday Herald. "If there really is a problem, it won't just apply to the potatoes but probably to all other transgenes." The implications are enormous. In 1999, one-third of the corn and one-half of the soybeans planted in the United States were genetically engineered.
The condemnation from the pro-genetic engineering scientific establishment was immediate. The Royal Society accused The Lancet of being "breathtakingly arrogant" for publishing Pusztai's research. The Guardian reported that two days before the publication of the Pusztai paper, Lancet editor Richard Horton had been warned by a senior member of the Royal Society, British Academy of Medical Sciences President Richard Lachmann, that his job would be in jeopardy if he published Pusztai's research. Horton told the Guardian he was called "immoral" and told that publication of the paper would "have implications for his personal position as editor." Lachmann, who denies the charges, is on the scientific advisory board of the pharmaceutical corporation SmithKline Beecham, which is heavily invested in biotech ventures.
The most benign interpretation of Pusztai's research is that the problem could be specific to the experimental transgenic potatoes he studied. More ominously, the adverse effects on the rats could be caused by the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter, a marker widely used in genetic engineering. "The study that Pusztai did should be redone to tease out what exactly is going on with the potatoes," says Michael Hansen, a research associate at Consumers Union. "But for the folks that criticize it, his study is still a much better-designed study than the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed literature that deal with Round-Up Ready soybeans or BT corn. Pusztai's are the kinds of experiments that need to be done with engineered foods."
Yet no such independent, government-supported research into the effects of genetically engineered foods on mammals is now being carried out in either the United Kingdom or the United States, where they have been given a clean bill of health by the Food and Drug Administration. Responding to a letter to the editor from Lachmann in The Lancet, Pusztai writes, "Lachmann says the experiments need to be repeated. We would be happy to oblige. If our experiments are so poor why have they not been repeated in the past 16 months? It was not we who stopped the work."
Could it be that the biotech industry fears the results of independent research could erase its enormous investment in this untested technology ?
"We don't need genetically modified food in this country," Pusztai told the Sunday Herald. "But British politicians can only see profits. They want a share, and to hell with the consequences. It is a short-sighted policy. It happened with the BSE [Mad Cow] crisis, and make no mistake-it is happening again."
Emphasis was all mine. This was from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/NoSmallP
I read about the story somewhere else, couldn't find the link, but found a similar story here.
This also made the list of the top 25 unreported news stories. (You mean the TV doesn't tell me everything I need to know?!)
I agree completely with your main point by the way.
I like the show. I pretty much agree, some shows are embarrassing, but luckily others manage to push my 'interest' buttons.
Here's hoping they continue to improve in the next couple years. (Pleeeease learn from Voyager!)
James.
From your response, I find it difficult to believe that you even know what an allegory is, or have any idea why an author would choose to write one.
Did you know the bible is largely allegorical? In ancient times, spiritual teachings were often encoded into allegorical stories, preserving their secrets from the 'profane', and protecting the person carrying them from persecution. (Many other reasons why allegories are useful and powerful devices...)
It's clear to me now why the ancients used such a device: it works. When shown a rather obvious allegory such as 2001, people not only refuse to believe it, but insist that it's a figment of the imagination and that the person making the claim is a 'pompous ass'.
Perhaps this is the result of hundreds of years of social conditioning, with the church 'inisiting' that the tall tales they teach are meant to be taken literally.
August 16, 1964: We've also got the name of our hero at last -- Alex Bowman. Hurrah!
October 15, 1965: Stan has decided to kill off all the crew of Discovery and leave Bowman only. Drastic, but it feels right. After all, Odysseus was the sole survivor...
Proves what? That they were trying to make the plot more consistent with the odyssey, not that they hadn't decided on the allegory when the name 'Bowman' was chosen.
Do you really think Kubrik and Clarke spent all their time working subtle symbolism into every detail of the movie?
:P
First, it may surprise you that some writers/artists enjoy using symbolism, allegories, word play, anagrams etc. Now try to think of their possible functions in a work of art...
Second, how do you think one goes about making a good story and getting the visuals right? Do you think good stories are conjured out of thin air? Do programmers write every line of a new program from scratch?
Now look at the practical side of the creative process. What should we call the monolith? What does the space ship that goes to the moon look like? Is it too hard to believe that Kubric would go back to the 'source' material for inspiration? I mean, why use something arbitrary when you have the opportunity to attach symbolic significance that's in tune with the work as a whole?
If you really need your hand held, consider the hidden cheats or secret rooms common in video games. That's kinda like what Kubric was doing with 2001.
As far as NO MEAT and bathroom tiles, as Wheat was trying to point out, these are minor conjectures that appear to fit the overall model. See comment #122. My take on Cliffs review: I didn't understand most of it and these two lines in the book were dumb.
The authors mistake in his response: overestimating his audience. How he could make such a mistake after reading the initial review and subsequent responses is beyond me. To Wheat I say: the education system is working magic, but should be renamed to more accurately reflect its function.
...they are being bashed for not providing a nurturing enough environiment. if you were under this kind of bombardment at work, you'd probably scream about the death of common sense and eventually give notice.
Maybe that's what kids in school are already doing: screaming about the utter lack of common sense! Except they can't give notice! They're stuck and nobody is listening!
When obviously smart kids with good parents start screaming, teachers get confused because it never occurs to them to question the education system itself! It's always got to be *somebodys* fault, the kids fault, the parents fault...
The school system is a designed structure. Maybe it's time people took a hard look at the system we've designed for our kids grow up in.
Remember the "face" on Mars? That one was very effectively debunked with the MGS images.
Actually, the image that supposedly debunked the "face" was doctored by NASA. They subsequently released an undoctored version that still looks like a face to me, despite the angle of the photo, and despite the less than ideal lighting...
If NASA really wanted (or were able) to debunk these theories, they'd take a number of images of the face, different angles at different times of day. Then they'd release them without the heavy processing, the way MGS pics are usually released.
NASAs resistence and obfuscation regarding the face has cultivated an air of mystery and suspicion.
...There was no due process. There was no search for understanding. There was no compassion... The school administrators that deal with disciplinary problems deal with guns, drugs, and lewd conduct all day. They treat the computer people, generally meeker and milder and more intelligent, the same as everyone else... We're usually over active and very curious.
You sound like a rich kid who broke the law. "They're treating me like a common criminal!" Oh, how awful for you!
Yet despite your myopia, you have a very good point. Maybe you shouldn't have been treated that way because you were curious. Maybe nobobdy should be treated that way because they're curious. Just so happens you're curiousity is usually considered acceptable. What about kids who are curious about social structures, kids who challenge authority? Should their curiousity be suppressed? What kind of implicit lesson is being taught here? Are schools training students not to challenge authority?
What is the solution?
First, define the problem. How are schools structured? What kinds of behaviours do they encourage? In other words, what structural lessons are being taught? Is obedience favoured over autonomous responsibility? Is rote memorization and regurgitation favoured over creative, independent, and critical thought?
When kids start killing each other and themselves at school, it's time for a critical look at the school system.
THE ABOLITION OF WORK
By Bob Black
http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html
See Also:
http://www.whywork.org/
Related article:
Lethargic living can add years to yawns
Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 4/19/01
Lazy is good. Lazy is happy. Go on. Be lazy.
That is the advice of one Peter Axt, a researcher with the Fulda University of Applied Sciences in Germany, who announced yesterday that "aimless sloth" was the secret to health, happiness and a long life. A very long life.
He pities virtuous joggers, frantic workaholics, determined dieters. The tidiers, the cleaners, the fussers, the preeners -- they are only running toward an early demise, he says.
"People who would rather laze in a hammock instead of running a marathon, or who take a midday nap instead of playing squash have a better chance of living into old age," Mr. Axt said.
His newly published study, "On the Joy of Laziness," is somewhere between Zen philosophy and an old wives tale, extolling the virtues of serenity, sleeping late and ignoring the garbage until it "builds its own eco- system."
Mr. Axt, who has already authored the books "Just Stay Young" and "Eat Yourself Slim" is convinced that humans have only been allotted so much energy. Why squander it on, say, aerobics?
"Research shows that people who run long distances into their 50s are using up energy they need for other purposes," he said. "They suffer memory loss. They risk premature senility."
And for heavens sake, sleep. Mr. Axt said that people who bolt from their beds at an early hour remain frazzled the day long. A leisurely stroll meets his approval, though, as does gentle dieting. He offers a prescription, in fact, for the general population. "Waste half your free time," Mr. Axt said. "Just enjoy lazing around."
(snip)...
The school system itself is to blame. It is cruel and unusual punishment, aimed not at criminals, but children.
Most think our schools are good and necessary simply because they are too ignorant to consider the structural implications, nor do they have the faculties to imagine an alternative. This has to do with their lack of an education. In that respect, the education system works: people LEARN to be intellectually apathetic. The question is: who does it work for?
Children, trapped in classrooms, start to pick on other children, simply to relieve the boredom. Occasionally the victims, feeling they can't escape, freak out. I can see how these kids might use video games to drive their fantasies of revenge. But it's easy to the blame video games. And it's easy to blame "mental illness". It's alot harder to question some of our most basic assumptions about learning and discipline. After all, if I create an unhealthy environment for you to grow up in, am I not to blame if you become mentally ill as a result?
Kids are shooting each other at school! And it boggles my mind that nobody even considers taking a hard look at this bizarre system we've created.
Some required reading:
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Gatto.html
http://www.alfiekohn.com/teaching/articles.htm
Read first, comment second.
"I find it interesting that you would blame the courts and not the half of the populace who didn't bother to vote at all."
People have the right not to vote. Besides, this kind of situation could arise regardless of how many people voted, since the issue is about counting the votes that WERE cast.
When you say 'blame', isn't the writer blaming the court for making a decision that is not consistent with legal precedent? Or are you implying another sort of blame?
When the writer suggests that the voters were fucked, do you think he meant that ALL the voters were fucked?
Just wondering - does microsoft use any GPLed programs? If so, is there grounds to examine their code, to insure that no licences have been violated?
Dunno much about this sort of thing, so excuse my ignorance...
But the thing is, there's nothing stopping farmers from using a thousand other varieties of seeds.
Yes, but there's no way to prevent the spread of monsanto genetics!
Imagine if I buy and plant some monsanto seeds in your neighborhood. Next year, after the pollen from my crop has *infected/fertalized* approx 1% of your crop (plants have sex too you know), I can sue you for not burning your fields.
Remember, monsanto owns and licences the *genetics*. If your canola gets frisky with monsanto canola, monsanto owns the offspring. When those seeds plant themselves into your field, you have a choice - remove them, pay up or get sued.
Monsanto = Genetic Pollution
I'm talking about the whole history of the christian religion, from Constantine issuing edicts to persecute the Hellenists, all the way to the burning of Beatles albums. In other words, knowledge is still burned today in Christs name, even material as non threatening as pop music.
I just used the term 'fanatical monks' because I wanted to play on your use of the word 'fanatical'.
True, the monks you speak of did preserve knowledge, but from whom? I mean, it's one thing to recognize an oasis in a desert of ignorance, but one must ask: how did things get so dry in the first place?
"However this assumes that if a religious organization were somehow proven to be fraudulent, it would be conclusive evidence to the fraud of Christ. Shakey at best. Also, any example of myths predating life events of Christ proves His nonexistance. I've seen that one before too."
Well, the two in combination work well together, since the only evidence of a historical Christ was written by said fraudulent organization, based (sometimes word for word) on earlier myths. Theses myths are well known to be allegories for the sun and stars.
"Pious Fraud" was the term invented by the Church to describe the enormous amount of plagiarism and fraud by the 'authors' of Christian texts including the numerous reworkings of the bible, adding historical details etc.
Well, I've read her book, and its loaded with references, alot of it from the church itself, which has on occasion admitted the preexistence of the christian fable. The explanation: the devil got their first to try to fool christians. Ha ha.
Also, ever heard of 'pious fraud'?
I'm still studying of course. It was life changing for me in that I suddenly became interested in the histories and evolutions of religious organizations, along with the relationship between the gods and the stars which I find endlessly fascinating.
By the way, the author, who uses the pseudonym Acharya S. is a mythologist, archeologist, historian and linguist. I've taken some time to check some of her claims in the essay, and so far everything has checked out.
Oh, and when you say 'biased', do you include anyone who has formed an opinion (based on their research) that is contrary to what you want to beleive? I mean, shouldn't you do some research yourself before you start slinging ad hominems?
"That page was an interesting read, but didn't have much credibility."
How so?
I used to believe something similar. However, I was just reinventing Jesus to suit my own sensibilities. I'm just getting into all this, so maybe you could share your source with me, and I'll be sure to look into it. Here's what I've learned so far:
The early Christians were not Jewish. The Old Testament was added later by the Romans, along with corroborating details in the NT. (The OT is a very effective tool for facilitating social control as it stresses obedience and fear.) And many of the early Christian Gnostics (including Marcion, who compiled the first NT) opposed the notion of a historical Christ. You can corroborate this by reading the counter arguments made by early Church fathers who were constantly having to defend the notion.
To quote from Acharya's book:
"'The forged New Testament booklets and the foolish writings of the Fathers, are the sole 'evidence' we have for the alleged facts and doctrines of our most holy Faith,' as, adds Wheless, is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia itself.
"As it is said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'; yet, no proof of any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming."
You can bring a student to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.
9 22 8&cid=426
In fact, if you try to force feed knowledge to people, and try to force them to think, they will try even harder to resist. If you do it long enough (say... from early childhood to adulthood) the resistance will probably become habitual.
There's boatloads of research on this and other aspects of the learning process that are ignored by both the education system and educators alike.
I wrote a related post earlier this week at
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/02/20/19
"I'm pretty sure "Christianity" is the antithesis of what Christ wanted."
Here you assume incorrectly that there ever was a man named Christ who walked the earth. You are obviosly not pro church, but you will still agree to one of the churches most basic tenets. This shows the success the church has had in shaping the beliefs of our society. Even the churches opponents argue within the framework crafted by the church.
I urge you to read the following essay. I'm not christian, never have been, and my life was still forever changed by the thorough and fearless debunking found at:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
"Nah. Not when there's people who play the lottery every week."
Well, hundreds/thousands of years of cultural conditioning can do that to a society.
And once you conquer a persons mind, you can safely assume that they'll 'educate' their children.
The brain: wash once, wear forever.
I think you are correct.
:)
Reading the original post again, if I parse it this way: "People who present themselves as free thinkers or are perceived to be free thinkers can in reality be more conformist than most", I would agree. In other words, don't judge a book by its cover.
But I took the word 'nominal' to be redundant, which is where I erred. I see now why you focused on the word 'can'.
Regarding the approach issue, I then went on to try to make a clear distinction between an act of conformity and an act of free thought, which I think is relevant, as an aside at least.
Nominal "free-thinking radicals" can be just as conformist....
Not true. One can not be a free thinker and be a conformist at the same time. The difference is in the approach. I'm making a distinction between processes, with appearances being irrelevant. (I agree that many apparent 'freethinkers' are simply conforming to their subculture or niche like you pointed out.)
You, on the other hand, appear to be asserting that their appearance necessarily implies that they are less conformist than the rest of society. For instance, you say "Internally, the reasoning process itself is non conformist". Perhaps you mean to say "can be non conformist".
No, I am saying that conformers vs free thinkers has nothing to do with appearances and everything to do with how one approaches a situation, which is process related.
It's been my experience that a large number of these rebellious-types are some of the least intellectually flexible, most conformist (within their little niches) of the lot.
I agree. But I wasn't making distinctions between mainstream conformists and subculture/alternative/niche conformists. I was distinguishing between conformists and free thinkers.
It might be useful to distinguish between apparent conformity (usually an externally applied label based on appearance) and real conformity, which is a way of approaching things, or a behaviour. Free thinking is a different approach or behaviour. Thus it is possible to be a free thinker while still appearing in every way to conform.