Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil deGrasse Tyson clarifies his remarks, re: GMOs. [View all]bananas
(27,509 posts)29. Nope - NDT is wrong - he even admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The video clip starts with NDT asking "Des plantes transgenique?"
Then he guesses that refers to GMO's.
Well, if he knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have to guess.
You don't like wikipedia, here's a reference from Nature magazine (although you probably never heard of Nature magazine before, it's one of the most respected science magazines):
http://www.nature.com/news/fields-of-gold-1.12897
Nature | Editorial
Fields of gold
Research on transgenic crops must be done outside industry if it is to fulfil its early promise.
01 May 2013
It was 30 years ago this month that scientists first published the news that they could place functional foreign genes into plant cells. The feat promised to launch an exciting phase in biotechnology, in which desired traits and abilities could be coaxed into plants used for food, fibres and even fuel. Genetically modified (GM) crops promised to make life easier and natures bounty even more desirable.
As a series of articles in this weeks Nature explores, things have not worked out that way (see page 21). The future matters more than the past, but when it comes to GM crops, the past is instructive.
<snip>
Nature | Editorial
Fields of gold
Research on transgenic crops must be done outside industry if it is to fulfil its early promise.
01 May 2013
It was 30 years ago this month that scientists first published the news that they could place functional foreign genes into plant cells. The feat promised to launch an exciting phase in biotechnology, in which desired traits and abilities could be coaxed into plants used for food, fibres and even fuel. Genetically modified (GM) crops promised to make life easier and natures bounty even more desirable.
As a series of articles in this weeks Nature explores, things have not worked out that way (see page 21). The future matters more than the past, but when it comes to GM crops, the past is instructive.
<snip>
They use the term "GM" correctly - NDT doesn't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If it's genetic code has been changed, then it is genetically modified...
Dr Hobbitstein
Aug 2014
#35
No, "transgenic", "genetically engineered", and "genetically modified" are synonymous.
bananas
Aug 2014
#55
I note the good Doctor Neil says both that ALL food is GMO and that SOME food can be patented
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2014
#41
Uhm, GMO-Agriculture is basically all food we eat from before the advent of modern genetic...
Humanist_Activist
Aug 2014
#99
DDT, Love Canal, Lead gasoline and paint, Asbestos insulation.....brought to us by SCIENCE!
Dems to Win
Aug 2014
#6
Anti-GMO'ers, like most other woo believers, mostly belong to one of three groups...
Archae
Aug 2014
#21
The repurposing of the word "organic" is itself nothing more than a marketing tool...
Dr Hobbitstein
Aug 2014
#23
There are legitimate concerns about GMO. However, the woo collective ruins it for everyone.
chrisa
Aug 2014
#31
The purpose of GMO is for corporate shitstains to sue people like Percy Schmeiser
eridani
Aug 2014
#38
If research is really needed, then don't we need activism to prevent premature market entry?
BillZBubb
Aug 2014
#43
Saying all food comes from GMOs is pretty disingenuous. Tyson's either ignorant or dishonest here.
Chathamization
Aug 2014
#27
I said "either ignorant or dishonest". My guess is the later. He either doesn't know the meaning of
Chathamization
Aug 2014
#34
I do think the good doctor stepped out of his field of expertise into a mine field.
BillZBubb
Aug 2014
#45
He's "ignorant" (a) because they think they know more than this brilliant man. They fucking don't,
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#63
I'm kinda of surprised at all this shite coming from him. I'd read about how he was suppose to
Cha
Aug 2014
#48
I don't get how for someone so intelligent that he fully trusts the FDA
PuraVidaDreamin
Aug 2014
#54
On conflating intentional breeding with genetically modified organisms
Warren Stupidity
Aug 2014
#56
Climate change deniers have been pushing the same garbage - "The climate is always changing!"
Chathamization
Aug 2014
#92