AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

I guess for many people it may be a mixture of the two. I can live happily with such mixtures, as I am a human being and not merely a thinking machine. For example, I don't have a bee in my bonnet about vaccines "causing" autism, I am inclined to accept the idea of man-made global warming, I am not afraid of electromagnetic fields, but I have most definitely not yet accepted that the argument for GM foods has been made. I am not keen on babies genetically edited for vanity reasons although I accept happily that certain diseases may be avoided by such methods. In short, I am, as I said, a human, not a binary-brained robot, monomaniac, or Aspie. If I am inconsistent, well, so be it. "So sue me" as Americans say.

Now here is some genuine irony in operation, not Max's self-serving phony irony. The radio program to which i responded with this thread was about the 1975 AAAS convention, which had presentations on ESP/Telepathy, Velikovsky and other topics which members considered pseudo-science. That made me think of the confused, one might say muddied topic of what are scientifically valid objections to certain aspects of our world, and what are not. Anyone who is playing with a full deck will know the extent to which our contemporary world is founded upon scientific research and its productions. The problem is that far from being dead, superstition is alive and well, and, of course, encouraged by those who profit from books and public speaking tours to promote anti-science agendas.

The GMO topic is certainly difficult to untangle, but it's the points of view of most opponents which concerns me. I think that, in fact, it is relatively well-educated young people who become obsessive enemies of GMOs. At any event, this is what i wished to discuss here.

One of the problems in many foreign journals is that they appear and disappear on a yearly basis.

Weve had double blind p eer review and peer "summaries" that get code reviewed for continuity and similar statements from others .
The journal in US and UK are usually more long standing an dont just appear every month like in Asia.

Remember the system is qdjusting to new technology and there will always be some wrong headed cheaters.
It was way more criminal in the 1800'sw hen almost all science was invited by an "old boys network"


As I said, peer review never guarantees accuracy or even validity, it only means that someone has read the paper and approves it for publication.
The fact that so many papers are being withdrawn means that the system is making its adjustments (I hope for the better).
Journals have an "Qfterword" prt of their pubs that allow for more relevant comments and fist fight about whether a paper is valid or the math is correct.

The fact that software can detect plagiarism and similar phrases used by several of the peer review teams is something that we never before had available.

I wouldnt be such a "Chicken little" because weve always had some problems with the process, its not a new thing and its not even a sirty secret. If we find an article had been given an "old boys" pass for old times sake, the general readers of the article will excoriate both the authors AND the peer review committee and chair.

I am skeptical, but I am listening. I will see if I can find "Arrival of the Fittest".

But my real point is that ideology impacts the way that we, as society at large, accept and understand science. Many times beliefs that are widely held in society contradict real scientific data... and this isn't limited to just one side of the ideological/political aisle.

The GMO issue was just an example, but let's keep running with it.

As a citizen with a science education, but no deep knowledge in the field, how do I process this of dispute? I see what looks like a scientific consensus from all the organizations I trust, and I see some people on the internet fervently claiming that there is some scientific danger and that big companies (be they agribusiness in the case of GMOs or pharmaceutical companies in the case of vaccines) distorting the data.

You say that there is a difference between GMOs and vaccines even though the scientific establishment says that GMOs and vaccines are both acceptable. The anti-vaccination people do make arguments to refute the scientific community that seem surprising similar to your arguments.

the major point about vaccines as I understand is the carrying fluid (the diluent) is the primary concern. It is a bit of carbolic acid and this has had some reports of causing (or at least being autocorrelated)with autism in school kids.
I think that, just like Arsenic in our water, the autism fear is one that has grown as our ability to define and diagnose it have become more inclusive.


My concerns of GMOs are more of a generational thing. I feel that any gene inertions need to be studied long term to prevent occurences of heretofore unknown phenotypic changes that could be sub-lethal or even a cause for some chronic condition in the new host .

We learned a lot after the prion scares and Hanta virus and CJD (mad cow). We are presently learniong a lot more with the ubiquitous Bacillus thuringensis(Bt) gene and other bacilli inserts in plants.

The interesting question is about scientific literacy.

Scientific literacy understanding scientific process. It means being able to read an experiment in any field and understand what metrics are used and what confidence the levels are. It means having a trust for scientific institutions (since we can't all be experts in everything). And it means being able to accept scientific fact as objective, the data is what it is regardless of how it impacts any ideology or political position.

It also means being able to understand and develop rational response to risk. As an example where the American public failed at scientific literacy, take the Ebola Crisis where everyone wanted to shut down borders and imprison nurses for what the scientific facts indicated was a negligible risk.

Americans in general are not scientifically literate. Americans will use their existing beliefs to process popular science reports (which in my opinion are usually atrocious).

Science supports peoples existing narrative rather than challenges it.

So, consider a scientifically literate person, one who has a scientific education but no deep knowledge in the field. How does this person look at the conflicting information that is available in any of these issues including climate change, vaccines and GMOs.

Sure, I am open to reading papers that disagree with consensus. I know how to read a paper and I know how they are put together. But my education is in Physics, I have no expertise in medicine or evolution or meteorology (although Physics is a little more relevant here).

I feel that scientific consensus, as determined by our large reputable scientific institutions, should be trusted. This puts the scientific decisions in the hands of the people actually doing the research. There are always dissenters on any issue, particularly in this age of the internet, but when a scientific consensus has been proven generally trustworthy.

You are wrong about your tobacco example. See http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full

The tobacco companies were arguing against the scientific consensus that had already form that smoking caused cancer. The research on tobacco causing cancer started in the 1920s, and the research continued through the 1930s and 1940s where there were many papers being published on the topic. By 1957 the surgeon general had already stated plainly that smoking caused cancer. The tobacco companies ran a well-funded campaign against what was a scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer.

The tobacco case is another example where the scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer was right. Since the 1920s there was never a scientific consensus from reputable scientific organizations that smoking was safe.

Since the 1940s a scientifically literate American listening to reputable scientific organizations would have known the truth about the link between smoking and cancer.

The tobacco companies are interesting for another reason, one which concerns corporate interest in the scientific consensus. Tobacco companies long knew that nicotine is addictive, but denied it. This abstract from a paper submitted to the World Health Organization states the position succinctly:



My personal opinion is that tobacco company executives not only wished to suppress this information, but were also privately delighted to think that they had an addictive and legal product to sell. Whether or not that is true, they obviously attempted to suppress scientific information.

there were always papers re tobacco. It became an issue when the consensus loomed large and the relationship became more verified back in the 50's (the early work was mostly statistical and biomedical). Yet still the ag papers were all abuzz with new strains of "low tar tobaccos"a nd flavor enhanced strains.

WHat We know at any time is complex multi faceted thing

Its composed of several layers of reality

1WHAT DO THE PERTINENT LAWS STATE ?

2WHAT ARE THEY TEACHING IN COLLEGES ND MED SCHOOLS (wrt tobacco)

3WHAT ARE THEY PUBLISHING IN PEER EEVIWED LITERATURE?

4WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY

5WHAT DO TEXTBOOKS USED IN HIGHER EDUCATION PRESENT AS EVIDENCE ?(many times it takes a well known text several editions to "get a clue")

My past has often been in the area of scientific forensics to determine the migration of mining wastes and toxicants into the environments and how that affects the health and environment for nearby people. Ive used this above basis of understanding what e knew to show that many industries just didnt hqve a clue that they were causing lethal conditions in their surrounds . The oucomes were to grqnt the insurance funds to actually do cleanups .

What we knew and when has always been an interesting topic and its been distilled down to a majority of the above 5.

I gotta start a trip upstate by 7AM so Ill check back probably by next Tues or earlier if I have wifi at the hotel. Ill be in the deep woods along a string of gas wells


Good topic and we havent gotten too insulting and its page 5? COOL

My point is that in the case of tobacco, the scientific community and reputable scientific institutions, did their job and reached a consensus that smoking was harmful in spite of a well-financed effort by tobacco companies to distort the science.

The scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer was right. The tobacco companies were effective in propagating misinformation to the public and influencing policy, but that isn't a failure of scientific community to reach an objective consensus based on empirical evidence.

In this case, a scientifically literate American who was listening to reputable organizations would have come to the correct conclusion.

This is the same thing I am doing when it comes to GMOs (or vaccines or climate change).

I am not listening to the propaganda. Rather I am trusting reputable established organizations to help me understand science outside of my field of study. The scientific community at large acts as a referee and has, in the case of tobacco, done a good job.

My concerns are all to do profit being the main motivator and not a desire to solve world hunger. GM seeds that are sold to farmers are treated so they don't reproduce, meaning farmers can no longer grow their own seeds but are reliant on Monsanto year in year out.

The makers of Agent Orange...

GMOs are probably one of the most troubled of contemporary science issues. Golden rice was developed to provide beta carotene in regions where children don't get enough in their ordinary diet. Objections on how effective the grain is as a vitamin A source have been addressed and those who produce it have carefully avoided any taint of exploiting either farmers or consumers. Nevertheless, the obsessive critics of GMOs have condemned golden rice. More troubling has been the attitude of Green Peace which has taken a "thin end of the wedge" attitude toward golden rice (completely flabbergasts me). Basically, they're saying that the success of Golden Rice will enhance the reputation of GMOs, which they don't want to see, and that its success might lead to more widespread use of GMOs.

I think GMOs may be the moist politically fraught topic in agriculture.

Not in the least, no. Why should it? You didn't contribute a single thing to that thread apart from making false, overreaching claims. Nor did you in any way meaningfully address, let alone counter, any point I was making.

Your participation in that thread exemplified all the things you are trying to preach against in this thread. All you really did was demonstrate your incompetence in even understanding the issues, coupled with blind faith.

The feeling that we shouldn't be trying to override nature has been around for a while. The thing is: we already have. But should we lose faith in science or trust it to find solutions?

A group that seems to say "lose faith" is the Sierra Club, which has discovered it can block the activities of the National Forest Service by tying them up in court. The Sierra Club sees all NFS actions as attacks on nature. NFS scientists say the potential for wildfire in the US is not a naturally occurring situation. It was created by decades of fire suppression which resulted in a highly flammable undergrowth throughout American forests. The NFS would like to create deforested corridors to limit wildfires to allow American forests to arrive at a less flammable state in a less devastating way. The Sierra Club has opposed this.

They're an example of people who say "No, more science is not the answer." Another example is people who oppose further development of nuclear power plants and research into hot fusion power. As with the genetic manipulation of humans and cloning issues, it's not really superstition in play. It's the sense that we aren't wise enough to take on the power science can give us.

Nah Layman, I made the same claims in that thread that I am making here.

The scientific consensus is based on scientific claims that have established through experiments and observations. The scientific process works, as do institutions our society has set up to promote scientific knowledge and technology. We have highly trained scientists who have a full understanding of current understanding of theory pushing forward to advance our knowledge. This is the way it should work.

There is nothing I have argued in either thread that goes against what is being said by the experts in the scientific community who are actually doing cutting edge work in the fields we are discussing.

The Sierra Club are a bunch of power mad fools, in my never humble opinion. Years ago, they successfully blocked a hydro-electric project in Bnagladesh which would have required international funding. They blocked the funding. They opposed it because it would have drowned some land in order to make the reservoir which would have been needed to regulate the flow of the water. They wanted to "save" the forest which would have been drowned. Ironically, it is possible that an equivalent acreage of forest has been cut down since then for firewood--many Bengalis use firewood for cooking and heating. (I say possibly because the source where i read this is a fanatical anti-Sierra Club site, so i don't consider them to necessarily be a reliable source.) Of course, with electricity, they wouldn't need to burn wood for fuel and heating.

Another problem is people who do science, or claim to, but who have a hidden agenda. There was a woman interviewed on the radio yesterday who was ranting about the carbon footprint of the beef industry. She kept referring to meat eating, and not specifically beef. Another guest they had later in the show pointed out that pork and poultry production don't have such heavy carbon footprints, and are no worse than grain production and most vegetable sources. Another guest asked with what that woman would replace the protein she would not get if she gave up meat. (That woman was listening, she noted that the first guest had constant harped on meat, rather than beef.) Many vegetarians and vegans eat tofu--i've pointed out at this site what an environmental disaster commercial, industrial soybean production is, and won't go into that again here. The woman who criticized the first woman said that she her husband take deer tags in Virginia each year, and that that is the source of their meat for the year. She points out that they are at least not contributing to the carbon footprint of beef problem.

The show was about climate change, and the woman who was ranting against meat eating is a nutritionist. I suspect that she is at least a vegetarian, if not a vegan. I think she had a hidden agenda behind her presentation.

There is a difference between good science and bad science.

Science where the results are being influenced or filtered by an agenda is an example of bad science. Good science has no agenda other than to answer a testable question with valid data. Of course having an agenda doesn't automatically mean your science is bad.

Part of scientific literacy is being able to tell the difference between good science and bad science. There are many signals of good science.

The research needs to be accessible, the data needs to be published, the metrics used to score the data needs to be published and weaknesses in the data need to be acknowledged. Before science is accepted, it needs to be questioned by peers and reproduced by other experiments.

The scientific institutions we have set up are tasked with refereeing this process, and they do a good job.

Unfortunately, in spite of these institutions, Americans are not very good at making this distinction, and the popular press doesn't help.

The woman using global warming to attack meat production was British. I don't really need to be lectured on agendas and the distortions they may (or may not) cause in any discipline.

Hmmm... you responded to a scientific point I was making by claiming that I beat women.

If shutting out a scientific argument by nasty personal attacks isn't an example of you distorting science based on your agenda, I don't what is.

Which scientific point was that, Einstein? I have never claimed that you beat women, don't make **** up. Don't drag in things from other threads, this thread has a specific subject. In that thread, i was just making clear that i didn't intend to get in a pissing contest with you.

Whenever someone starts in on how bad Americans are at this or that, or how much worse things are in the United States, my bullsh*t detectors go off. In the 90s, conservatives were going on and on about how inferior the American educational system is. I suspect they had a hidden agenda about the content of curricula. I did some research online. A couple of things became clear. One was that time and again, educators claimed that American high school students have far more homework than students in other countries. Another aspect is the comparison of standardized test scores to determine who is doing well (nationally speaking) and who is not. In many countries, students never make it to high school because of multi-tiered systems which divert students. Students who are not performing to a certain academic standard are diverted to technical schools, or trades union apprenticeship programs. In the United States, unless you are truant, you're going to high school. People who don't do well academically are going to drag down the average scores in standardized testing in comparison to countries with multi-tiered educational system.

So when i see people decrying the deplorable situation in the United States, unless their talking about firearms ownership, i'm not buying it. Note that Tesyeux already mentioned in this thread that anti-vaccination nutters and anti-GMO nutters are well known in the UK. The United States doesn't have a corner on the anti-science market.