Re:C) scientists like you are unwittingly...
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Oh, and I meant PR (Public Relations) firms
Re:C) scientists like you are unwittingly...
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Here is where money comes from for the independent testing of such products:
1. I write a grant to the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation or the Packard Foundation (ecology) to study possible toxicity/side effects/etc. of the engineered subject of your choice.
2. Given sufficient credibility on my part and a demonstrable need to do the work, I am funded to do the work.
3 I perform a study worthy of publishing detailing my results that either support or refute my hypothesis regarding the danger of an engineered product or organism.
#2 and #3 would be undertaken if a company submitted a product or GM organism to the FDA or EPA for review.
Large organizations (including groups like Greenpeace) routinely make use of PF firms to get their points across regarding issues that they are opposed to. If I specialized in anti-GM work, of course I could get clients!
Tell me why the rationale for funding projects either in th public or private sector must necessarily be BAD for the general public, with the only goal making $$?
Again, I'm just looking for someone to find a documented, believable example of GM products that have CAUSED HARM. And maybe the tally was a bit childish--I won't add your response to it.
Re:C) scientists like you are unwittingly...
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Wrong! What are those 'research goals' exactly? Do I share 'research goals' with the entire community of biotech scientists? Am I getting rich? Getting rich by supporting 'research goals?' I could get just as rich starting a consulting company that does P.R. for anti-GM lobbying (and the burden of proof for my work would be much lower). You made my point for me. It's easier to just say things based on what you know from the popular press and how you feel than it is to click on a link to actual scientific research and do a little work.
Here are two sites where you can search (www.webofscience.com, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed) for evidence of health or other problems caused by genetically engineered foods AS PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. A poster above linked to a site that speaks of a Cornell study on the toxicity of GM pollen to moths or butterflies (can't remember which), but in a quick search I can't seem to find that that study was ever PUBLISHED. Lots of people have strong opinions on this subject. How about replying to this post with some evidence as published in reputable, PEER-REVIEWED journals as to the dangers of this technology. For keywords, try "genetically engineered food health." And remember: articles that have titles like "Genetically engineered foods: But what about ethics?" don't count.
If this search results in very few examples of health or other risks as published in the PRIMARY SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, it's either because A) scientists like me are actively covering up a potential health/environtment apocalypse or B) because there are very few documented examples of scientifically valid health risks SO FAR. And I do emphasize SO FAR, as there may be unforseen consequences of specific applications of this technology. Golden rice may indeed have unforseen negative consequences--I just don't believe any of them as presented by people in this thread. Anyone, including me, can pontificate about how a particular technology makes us feel. Why not search for some EVIDENCE and not how some USA Today writer or Scottish Parliament member FEELS when he hears about something new and different?
I was just referring to those chromed fish car ornaments. I have actually seen a legged "Darwin" fish ornament chasing a "Christian" fish that was in turn chasing another, smaller "Darwin" fish on the back of a nice Hyundai. Enjoyed your link!
I am a biology Ph.D. student (not long to go!). In my little world, we are always astonished to see that lots of people are out there actively fighting evolution in the interests of so-called "creation science." Who knew that Divinity Ph.D.'s have us outnumbered? Guess we need better P.R...
I suggest starting here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, then, using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search engine (which catalogues primary biomedical literature), search for reviews written about specific "hot" areas in genetic technology. PubMed is now a "killer app" because after finding an article that you're interested in, the abstract page has a "Books" link that re-formats the abstract with keywords hyperlinked to the seminal textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell. Now, even though a lot of these articles are written with a Biomedical audience in mind and filled with a lot of complex biology and jargon, definitions of anything needed for the "lay-"reader's understanding are immediately accessible. CHECK IT OUT.
Often lost in the shuffle of these big debates on genetic technology are the people involved in the actual WORK, and the ACTUAL capabilities conferred on humanity by that work; the pundits come out of the woodwork (including here on Slashdot: News for COMPUTER Nerds, often not BIOLOGY Nerds) whenever someone mentions DNA. The words "genetic engineering" sell newspapers and books. I recommend looking a little deeper.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and I meant PR (Public Relations) firms
Here is where money comes from for the independent testing of such products:
1. I write a grant to the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation or the Packard Foundation (ecology) to study possible toxicity/side effects/etc. of the engineered subject of your choice.
2. Given sufficient credibility on my part and a demonstrable need to do the work, I am funded to do the work.
3 I perform a study worthy of publishing detailing my results that either support or refute my hypothesis regarding the danger of an engineered product or organism.
#2 and #3 would be undertaken if a company submitted a product or GM organism to the FDA or EPA for review.
Large organizations (including groups like Greenpeace) routinely make use of PF firms to get their points across regarding issues that they are opposed to. If I specialized in anti-GM work, of course I could get clients!
Tell me why the rationale for funding projects either in th public or private sector must necessarily be BAD for the general public, with the only goal making $$?
Again, I'm just looking for someone to find a documented, believable example of GM products that have CAUSED HARM. And maybe the tally was a bit childish--I won't add your response to it.
Wrong! What are those 'research goals' exactly? Do I share 'research goals' with the entire community of biotech scientists? Am I getting rich? Getting rich by supporting 'research goals?' I could get just as rich starting a consulting company that does P.R. for anti-GM lobbying (and the burden of proof for my work would be much lower). You made my point for me. It's easier to just say things based on what you know from the popular press and how you feel than it is to click on a link to actual scientific research and do a little work.
Tally: Knee jerk reactions: 1. Actual data: 0
Here are two sites where you can search (www.webofscience.com, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed) for evidence of health or other problems caused by genetically engineered foods AS PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. A poster above linked to a site that speaks of a Cornell study on the toxicity of GM pollen to moths or butterflies (can't remember which), but in a quick search I can't seem to find that that study was ever PUBLISHED. Lots of people have strong opinions on this subject. How about replying to this post with some evidence as published in reputable, PEER-REVIEWED journals as to the dangers of this technology. For keywords, try "genetically engineered food health." And remember: articles that have titles like "Genetically engineered foods: But what about ethics?" don't count.
If this search results in very few examples of health or other risks as published in the PRIMARY SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, it's either because A) scientists like me are actively covering up a potential health/environtment apocalypse or B) because there are very few documented examples of scientifically valid health risks SO FAR. And I do emphasize SO FAR, as there may be unforseen consequences of specific applications of this technology. Golden rice may indeed have unforseen negative consequences--I just don't believe any of them as presented by people in this thread. Anyone, including me, can pontificate about how a particular technology makes us feel. Why not search for some EVIDENCE and not how some USA Today writer or Scottish Parliament member FEELS when he hears about something new and different?
I was just referring to those chromed fish car ornaments. I have actually seen a legged "Darwin" fish ornament chasing a "Christian" fish that was in turn chasing another, smaller "Darwin" fish on the back of a nice Hyundai. Enjoyed your link!
I am a biology Ph.D. student (not long to go!). In my little world, we are always astonished to see that lots of people are out there actively fighting evolution in the interests of so-called "creation science." Who knew that Divinity Ph.D.'s have us outnumbered? Guess we need better P.R...
I suggest starting here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, then, using the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search engine (which catalogues primary biomedical literature), search for reviews written about specific "hot" areas in genetic technology. PubMed is now a "killer app" because after finding an article that you're interested in, the abstract page has a "Books" link that re-formats the abstract with keywords hyperlinked to the seminal textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell. Now, even though a lot of these articles are written with a Biomedical audience in mind and filled with a lot of complex biology and jargon, definitions of anything needed for the "lay-"reader's understanding are immediately accessible. CHECK IT OUT.
Often lost in the shuffle of these big debates on genetic technology are the people involved in the actual WORK, and the ACTUAL capabilities conferred on humanity by that work; the pundits come out of the woodwork (including here on Slashdot: News for COMPUTER Nerds, often not BIOLOGY Nerds) whenever someone mentions DNA. The words "genetic engineering" sell newspapers and books. I recommend looking a little deeper.