National Geographic addresses war on science

[packman]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]


"The trouble goes way back, of course. The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasn’t just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense—because it sure looks like the sun’s going around the Earth, and you can’t feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales, and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people. So is another 19th-century notion: that carbon dioxide, an invisible gas that we all exhale all the time and that makes up less than a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, could be affecting Earth’s climate"

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

Going to buy that issue.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[Archae]

2. It won't be just the right-wingers "boycotting" this issue.

We have plenty of anti-science anti-GMO woo spreaders here as well.

Like all un evidenced, hysterical beliefs, even decades of research isn't believed, while nutcases who get a degree from the Maharishi Yogi "university" are.

[on point]

3. Woo partly spread by mass corruption of science by corp lies

Monsanto and their GMO program is excellent example

So too tobacco and environmental denials by corp scientists

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. Monsanto is not the end all of GMOs.

They're one of the big 7 companies, but their seed is a minority of what's out there.

Most of the studies re: GMO were 100% independent. No scientist worth their salt would falsify data in a peer-reviewed journal. Unless of course their name is Wakefield or Seralini. But those are the asshats that gave us the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine viewpoints.

[Archae]

7. Exactly. But the anti-GMO hysterics spread around words like "poison" or "Frankenfoods."

Real science says GMO's are safe.

Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson say GMO's are safe.

But...

"We eat only organic, natural!"

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. I always tell those who say

"we only eat organic" to enjoy wasting their money for food that is genetically the same, requires more manpower/fossil fuels to harvest and ship, and has a HUGE markup.

Organic and Natural. Two marketing terms that rake in BILLIONS of dollars.

[on point]

10. Maybe safe to eat, but not for environment. 2 different questions

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. Actually, perfectly safe for the environment.

Conventional foods use just as many pesticides and herbicides as GMO crops. Actually, BT crops use LESS pesticides. Monoculture (another issue raised) isn't exclusive to GMO either, it's related to supply and demand (where demand of one crop is higher than another, they can't be rotated year to year).

[G_j]

18. tell that to the bees nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. Which bees?

Most bee populations are doing quite well. If you're referring to the European honeybee species that is suffering colony collapse disorder in non-native North America (and to a SLIGHTLY lesser degree in Europe), then the census is still out on that. There have been many studies on various causes (pesticides, neo-nicitoids, parasites, fungicides, other pathogens, and antibiotics), none of which have been conclusive. Keeping in mind Europe has banned a lot of these substances, and CCD persists.

[G_j]

23. The "the census is still out" and "perfectly safe for the environment"

...not exactly the same thing..

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. The census is still out on the cause of CCD.

It has been studied, but nothing conclusive.

However, once again, pesticides and herbicides have NOTHING to do with GMO. Pesticides and herbicides were used long before GMO was a reality, and in the same concentrations.

[on point]

25. I don't think enough research by independents have been done, especially long term research

I think the GMO's were rushed to market before the real research required (over decades or their equivalent) has been done. I am not ready to say GMO ready yet.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

28. They were never rushed to market. They started development in the 70s.

Nothing hit the market until the 90s. Over 6,000 independent, peer-reviewed studies in scientific publications with a high impact factor. Really, the only GMO foods on the market at this point are corn, soy, and papaya. Papaya was relatively recent due to a disease that wiped out the majority of papaya in Hawaii. The new plant has a gene that makes it immune to the disease.

The newest GMO fruit to be APPROVED by the USDA (while still being studied by the FDA to ensure safety for human consumption) is the Arctic Crisp apple, which inhibits browning. That particular fruit has been in development for almost a decade by a Canadian company (read: NOT Monsanto), and has plenty of research behind it as well.

It would do you well to actually read up on the science behind this and avoid blogs and editorials.

[ffr]

26. Your claim is at least semi-false

Bill Nye explains clearly that the long-term repercussions of GMOs are unknown and that altering the food gene pool in a way that has never been done before and seemingly overnight in historic context, jokingly, may kill us. He says, we don't know and what's the rush?

He does so in his YT video that you posted.

Archae 02/12/15
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017244647

Ffwd 6:20m

#t=419

[paleotn]

35. Exactly. We don't know.

...it irritates the hell out of me that not just woo spreaders (also a farm implement used to fertilize fields), but those who supposedly advocate for science can't seem to stomach 4 simple words....we don't know yet. While it is true that studies have shown that some existing GMOs are relatively safe in certain circumstances, it's the circumstances we haven't thought about yet that worries me. But what really matters is what kinds of genes will eventually be spliced into the genomes of our food supply. That's the kicker. Though whats been added to date may not be all that nefarious, it is possible to do something really horrendous with the technology, and not necessarily on purpose. That's what keeps me up at night. We're like kids playing around with dad's gun.

[packman]

40. If you really step back and look at it objectively

Gene manipulation has been ongoing for centuries with breeding and cross-breeding animals and plants, and-sad to say- with humans. Even that monk Gregor Mendel

"... bred bees in a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he designed.[22] He also studied astronomy and meteorology,[10] founding the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865.[9] The majority of his published works were related to meteorology.[9]

Mendel also experimented with hawkweed[23] and honeybees. However, none of his results on these survived, except for passing mention in the reports of Moravian Apiculture Society.[24] All that is known definitely is that he used Cyprian and Carniolan bees,[25] which were particularly aggressive to the annoyance of other monks and visitors of the monastery such that he was asked to get rid of them.[26] In contrast, he had a fondness for the bees, and refer to them as "my dearest little animals".[27]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

[paleotn]

45. Huge difference between traditional cross-breading ....

...and modern genome modification. Mendel and everyone since using traditional methods are working with plant genes, pig genes, cattle genes, etc., not some novel genetics from an entirely different biological domain. The implications of such are nearly impossible to fully comprehend.

[quakerboy]

47. Organic...

Yeah. that one always bothers me, as I would hope it would bother anyone who has taken a chemistry class. Organic has a specific meaning, and there are a lot of organic things that one should really not consider safe for consumption.

Then again, Im not a proponent of GMO. I don't think its unsafe to eat GMO crops, but I also don't think its great for genetic diversity or sustainability in farming. Safe /= good, in my opinion.

[on point]

12. I agree for independent scientists, but corp scientists usually lie

They have sold their soul to corporations. Their studies are nuanced and slanted to support corp message and product missions. They can't be trusted until replicated by true independents. This has hurt the reputation of science overall and opened the door to woo and people making up their own facts.

While they have given up personal integrity for a paycheck, I am willing to agree this may be out of necessity given reality of how corrupt our system in general has become. But it has hurt objective truth science could be helping us with.

[Archae]

13. So what DO the actual independents say?

They say GMO's are safe.

The hysterics are the ones either believing in woo, or are corporate shills for Big Organic.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. "Corporate" scientists usually don't falsify data, either.

Did you know in published papers, they have to list any conflicts of interest or other connections to the things being studied, correct? The peer-review process works wonders. Falsified studies get retracted rather quickly. You don't hear about many because it doesn't happen often. Scientists spend a LOT of time and money on school. To risk all of that to tow a line is rather stupid.

I know quite a few scientists. One is a cancer research scientist who worked independently at university labs and for corporate labs. She said the best thing about corporate labs are the fact that they can afford things (well, that and the pay).

[kristopher]

37. Your position in this subthread...

(along with that of Archae) are actually a significant part of the problem. Have you considered that the type of certitude-where-there-is-none provides an easy straw man by which legitimate work is dismissed?

You say "No scientist worth their salt would falsify data in a peer-reviewed journal" and then proceed to act as if that means there is no bias in the scientific community. The performance of researchers is very often ethically questionable without them going to the extreme of falsifying data. For example, it is pretty easy to structure a piece of research so that it results in a desired outcome. This might be done in order for the funding entity to promote absolutely false messaging on a related issue.
That is something which goes on all the time.

My worldview is built on the scientific method - it provides the best chance we have of understanding the world - but, you'd have to be both blind and completely oblivious to not recognize the corrupting influences that capitalism has brought into the lab.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

38. I don't pretend there's no bias.

In fact, I listed two once popular scientists whose work was discredited because of bias and falsification. One being Andrew Wakefield, who falsified data and gave us the now discredited autism-vaccine link, the other is Seralini, who gave us the flawed and discredited GMO tumor in rats study.

However, I have referred to independent studies numerous times, studies that are outside the "corporate sphere of influence" just to appease those who feel that there is bias in all corporate science.

If a scientist follows the scientific method, there is no bias. That's plain and simple. Peer review cements it. Keep in mind, your SAME argument is used by global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers. I trust in peer-reviewed study. Experiments that can be duplicated with the same results. I don't trust in junk science or low IF journals.

[kristopher]

44. What do you actually know about risk evaluation that tells you ...

... the 'safe' studies are actually measuring the proper sets or following the appropriate line of analysis for the type of risks involved?

Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author
Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/genetically-modified-organisms-risk-global-ruin-says-black-swan-author-e8836fa7d78



EXTREME RISK INITIATIVE —NYU SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING WORKING PAPER SERIES
The Precautionary Principle
(with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb⇤, Rupert Read§, Raphael Douady‡, Joseph Norman†,Yaneer Bar-Yam† ⇤School of Engineering, New York University †New England Complex Systems Institute
‡ Institute of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, C.N.R.S., Paris
§School of Philosophy, University of East Anglia
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

[Dr Hobbitstein]

48. Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

while an intelligent man, is NOT a biologist nor a geneticist. He worked in finance and risk-assessment for much of his life. His books are not peer-reviewed science articles.

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

In that article, there is a link to 1700 INDEPENDENT studies. I encourage you to read at least ONE of them.

[kristopher]

50. Why would reading one study in isolation be beneficial?

I think we could move the discussion forward if you addressed the issue I raised - the design of the risk assessments you are using to buttress your rather over-the-top criticisms of those who disagree with you.
For example, do you disagree with need for application of the Precautionary Principle? If so, why? If not, then perhaps you could show the studies that have approached the issue with the problems that Taleb has raised in mind.

And your lack of recognition that Taleb is a highly regarded specialist in how proper risk assessment studies should be designed (irrespective of the subject matter) is not the mark of an unbiased scientific outlook. It is, in fact, typical anonymous internet cud.

[alp227]

34. I don't see Democrats in Congress prouding boasting about their beliefs in woo as much as

Republicans boasting their ignorance about evolution and climate. Maybe because organic foods and yoga don't donate as much money to Democrats as oil to Republicans. But a significant portion of the left wing can be as anti science as the right wing.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. Is this issue on shelves now?

I'm headed to the store later today. I may have to pick up a copy.

[pinto]

6. I read the piece this week. Good read.

+1

[NuclearDem]

9. Oh hell yes!

[GeorgeGist]

11. NatGeo TV caters to ignorants.

[olddots]

43. Murdoch owns Nat Geo TV

or he did .

our problem is very serious=the owners want thr masses dumb .

[Fred Sanders]

14. America is being dragged by Christian loving religious mass media back into the no man's land between science and superstition.

[HereSince1628]

15. the cover suggests war against science as a war for selfishness and personal opinion

War so me and my investors can make profits off dirty fossil fuels

War so me and my congregation can believe what we want, and btw, put me and Tammy Fae into a nice life-style, love those gold plated faucets!

War so me and my friends can express our cynicism about rocket engineers and others who generally know way way more than us...know it alls are such pains in the ass!

War so me and my friends can express our cynicism about medical experts who can't even cure a common cold and who can't decide if bacon is a good or bad food. Bacon is good gaddammit!

War so me and my friends can express our fear about things we really don't understand.

I've read Chris Mooney. I understand. It all can be made rational as a coordinated effort to exploit ignorance, fear, anti-intellectualism to serve the war for profits from fossil fuel exploitation.

But it's a war that collects recruits from the widespread and un-coordinated insistence on the right of citizens to have and act on an opinion built around personal interpretation of their immediate experience.

And there is a bigger war that goes unmentioned on that cover which is the WAR AGAINST EDUCATION, wherein the war on science is just one theater of conflict.

[erronis]

19. Good comment - thanks. You touch a lot of points

Money within the "system" definitely corrupts any viewpoints. Ignorance (willful, familial, or genetic) also leads to wrong conclusions. The republicans seem to have a lock on most of these.

There are few of us who can actually believe (perhaps incorrectly) that we are impartial and can analyze any facet of any argument in an objective way. Of course that is bullshit, also.

Perhaps if we had a perfect computer that would tell us right from wrong in every circumstance then we would lead our lives perfectly. (I'm a cmoptuer pergammer so I'll build this perfect cmoptuer.) Besides, we'd have to wait several billion years to get each answer spewed out.

Oh, I forgot what you were talking about. I'll get back to you, soon......

[DeSwiss]

22. Thank you for your conciseness.

It isn't a war on Science. I truly wish we'd lose that stupid piece of shit of a slogan.

The War on ___blank___!!! The War on ___blank___!!! The War on ___blank___!!!

The war is on us.

We're stupid. That's the problem.

If we weren't stupid we wouldn't be in this mess.

We wouldn't be destroying this planet and our lives in the process.

We know how to fix it.

But we're afraid.

We have stupid leaders.

- And they reflect who we are.

[paleotn]

36. Many aren't afraid....

...it's just fabulously profitable for a few to destroy the planet. And after all, they don't care because they'll all be dead when the music stops....or will they.

[wyldwolf]

21. All you worshipers of 'science.' All I've got to say is "Giordano Bruno."

[ZombieHorde]

31. Some people find well-gathered evidence by thousands around the world to be convincing.

Certainly that is just as crazy as religion, and therefore should be called worship.

[alp227]

33. Science was wrong before eh?

Doesn't automatically make magic right.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/11/science_wrong.html

[wyldwolf]

42. yeah, but

[NuclearDem]

39. What are you going on about?

[wyldwolf]

41. this

[ffr]

24. Not sure about this cover. Seems to go into ad hominem fallacy territory.

Climate Change. Yes, clear science. The same for evolution, every offspring takes traits from both parents or sources of it's genetic material.

Moon landing? That's less science than matter-of-fact instance that something did or didn't occur, so why was it included with the first two? That's just odd.

Vaccinations. Yes, there's clear science to indicate that vaccinations will protect most of the public, and therefore the current gene pool, from known strains that can possibly kill or harm them otherwise. But there's also the scientific history that vaccinations are a man-made product to prevent more deaths in the short-term. Human history has shown that our species has always survived without them. That's scientific too. Always and every outbreak. The strong or lucky or those with specific genetic traits survived. The difference between the two sciences is that death by diseases is now socially unacceptable. After all, we have the ability to inoculate and prevent it. Both work, but with different outcomes for the genetic pool that survives. One does so in the long-term, pretty much guaranteed from what we know. The other works too, at least in the short-term, but we've only been vaccinating for a very short period, from the perspective of human history, so we don't know what the long-term repercussions are. We do know that other life forms when exposed to and that survive foreign agents/viruses/strains, such as man-made insecticides and herbicides or through natural exposure to some other foreign substance, will typically have their immune systems adapt, thereby becoming immune to it. That's how natural selection works and the resulting gene pool was stronger for it.

GMOs fall into the same category as the last paragraph. It's a man-made experiment from recent decades, that we won't know the repercussions for until years later. We do know that for thousands of years selective breeding has worked and hasn't shown to adversely affect our genetic pool. GMO's are not selective breeding and have only come into being through genetically modified man-made processes that could not and have not occurred naturally, ever. True, GMO is a science, but so too is selective breeding and natural breeding of species.

We know natural selection has known results and thankfully for us, it works wonderfully. After all, we are the product of natural selection, which gets back to the first two sciences mentioned in the title. We feel strongly that selective breeding works, it's worked for thousands of years, so there's evidence to support that. And, as we can see from this story and from the comments above, that GMO's work. Which one produces the best possible gene pool that wins the natural selection war millions of years from now is unclear. Only time will tell, but history can give us many clues as to what type of pool you'll end up with through natural selection. Look in the mirror.

[shraby]

27. A big problem with natural selection in plant products is it takes a long time

and with the huge increases in population, humanity hasn't got time to wait for beneficial changes to come.
Even very early corn was "hurried" up to become a larger and fuller ear to accommodate that the larger population of the time became due to a more sedentary life. Those people needed more corn and it was modified to do the job.

[ffr]

32. Was that done through the process that would make the corn a genetically modified organism?

As opposed to a genetically bred organism?

I'm with Bill Nye. What's the rush? Literally. If our species is outstripping the planet's ability to feed our exploding population, I'd have to give pause and say, then something's got to give. If we cannot control our breeding and the solution is to produce more food, at any cost and through any means possible, when does it all end, at what human population does the system break?

No other species lives outside its natural system's ability to sustain it. Only one.

[ZombieHorde]

30. All those do have a common link.

All of those have conspiracy theories surrounding them. The moon landing's conspiracy says it was faked for the cold war. Climate change, vaccines, and GMOs all have the same basic conspiracy: scientists all over the world are being bribed/coerced into faking a specific set of results so evil people can make more money.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

46. four out of five ... not to bad

no gmo's

[whatchamacallit]

49. This paragraph fails to make GMO skeptics seem silly

We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because, the experts point out, there’s no evidence that it isn’t and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists running amok—and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, they talk about Frankenfood.

Yes, lateral gene transfer is so "traditional". What could possibly go wrong?