Yes: it's an hour long with breaks. Which does not alter the fact that it is indeed a metric crapload of ground to cover.

Presumably, it's related to Chris Barton's thoughtful story on de Freitas and the limits of academic freedom.

Because it's not like de Freitas hasn't already had [[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/22chris20de20freitas22/search/results.cfm?kw1=%22Chris%20de%20Freitas%22&kw2=&st=gsa|acres of space in the?

Someone really needs to submit a "world is flat" op-ed piece and demand that the rag publish it as 'balance'.

And it is also suggested it can infiltrate water supply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Oh, your link to the course outline answers that (topic 1 of 5 listed):

We consider the important drivers behind our climate system and investigate the hot topics of climate variability and climate change.

The Chris Barton story?

The most depressing thing to come from that affair wasn't the anti-science kooks, they're pretty much a given, but?

To say nothing of the www we're using to have this conversation – thanks CERN.

It does seem?

(Mind you, even with new telescope, all you could see out here would be mist, rain splatters, and occaisional sleety bits...)

For science to need to promote and?

CBBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC?s coverage of science

"He was asked to assess the impartiality and accuracy of BBC science coverage across television, radio?

I esteem Flannery but he's way out with that "60 million?

What the Frack!
Here?s the Fracking article Islander was?

That would be cool, but I do think it's a way harder thing to appreciate. I've looked at great art and heard great music, and appreciated, but I can't even think of a coffee table treatise?

I think we are moving closer to the point where 'good science' incorporates the ability to communicate scientific ideas to a lay audience. The Science Communication course at here at the University?

Well...yes and no. Good science is good science. That it can be and is communicated to the lay public is important, but that's a different thing and?

Tikanga
The primary indigenous reference for M?ori values and ethics are the creation stories which highlight specific relationships deemed fundamental to the sustainability of life.

Kind of a major stumbling block right at the beginning there. (there are others littered throughout the document.) Are they actually claiming some kind of?

Humans produce ~130x more CO2 than volcanoes.

Re: Geog101

Not my specialty, but I would have thought if there was so much as a single lecture (i.e., 50 mins) devoted to climate, it should be on anthropogenic climate change?

I don't think so. Creation myths have a legitimate cultural aspect, and tell you a lot about how people perceive the world around them. Taking that into account when dealing?

You mean like how Christians have laid claim to universal human values?

I wonder what our nation's woeful private sector contribution to research and development does for science's perceived value?

And for the relationship between that value and the funding of particular work. The current government is more explicitly focusing on applied research – or?

Oh, believe me, you don't get through a PhD without learning how to address those audiences. They should run seminars: How Your Research Can Be Related To Climate Change, Curing Cancer, Quantum Computers, Or?

That mining magnate may get a chance to quantify this, if these reports in The Australian and The Age are?

Now, convincing businesspeople to fund research in?

...and it ends with the understatement of the year
"There's still so much about our galaxy to discover," he said.

I totally agree Lucy. Now when I talk to school-kids who come through our institute one of the things I emphasize is how important English?

Or appreciate it?

Creation myths have a legitimate cultural aspect, and tell you a lot about how people perceive the world around them.

I dont doubt that for a minute. So?.does that lead anywhere apart from round in circles?

Taking that into account when dealing with the ethics of scientific sampling and practice?

Anyway, only an?

1001 Tales of Arabian Nights.

Currently in progress on my phone. I read there's a new translation out, too.

At least the Herald hasn't degenerated into The Australian's War on Science. Not yet at least

For anyone interested, that same blog has made mention of our Mr De Freitas?

"It's a Haggis, he was going to a barbie after"
"Does he know Ken?"
"Do ye nea ken?"
"?"

A one hour Media7 special on that topic might do better in the ratings too.

These things make more sense with concrete examples. I study snails, not medical science, so let?s say I decide i?m interested in flax snails and want to start a study of them.

Lots of people people value our native fauna, so i?d have to talk to DoC about how?

They're magnates because they don't work.

Speaking of which time to go sow my petunia seeds

The LHC is?

Yes sometimes it is possible to easily explain the science, in which case you should. BTW most scientists (including me) really just want someone who will listen to them. The usual experience is people being bored spitless and walking away.

But some science is complex.?

I've been having a great related conversation with Ben today (thanks, sir).

It may be that an actual peerage (as opposed to a knighthood) renders all other titles redundant in ceremonial use (as Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms are dropped),?

The Rt Hon Prof The Lord Winston FMedSci FRSA FRCP FRCOG FIBiol FREng(Hon)

Or:

Robert Maurice Lipson Winston, Baron Winston

Great name for a hip hop artist.

My pleasure, enjoyed the chat immensely.

and Epicurius especially, as far as I am concerned

andin – there are different sets of creation stories. They indicate relationships
and duties: they are not to be?

You really must stop frequenting supervillains.

So I have a problem with this. Yes I agree ethics play a very important role in science. More important than has been perceived in the past. There are many ethical considerations that simply demand the experiment be changed or simply not continue and rightly so.?

example?

research involving other humans, is about our moral and cultural traditions. For pakeha in NZ this mainly means the Judeo Christian tradition and the philosophical tradition about what it is to be human going back to the ancient Greeks,

If I may say, these are the exact same things that?

What, someone has experimentally proved that's not true? I thought part of the resistance to GM crops was the lack of precautionary research before their release.

Most of it seems to be about messing with DNA which is against the natural order (which I believe to be code for "God's Word")

Rational discussion is not a huge factor?

There is a lot of incredibly irrational opposition to GMOs which boils down to "but it's not natural", to which my answer is generally "how do you feel about antibiotics and modern dentistry?". (Also, species swapping DNA = 100%?

Nah, it?s way more EE-ish than CS-y. Signal,?

That's what I was asking, thanks. I'm not so interested in the topic as others, so I recall opposition a while back?

Sigh. Like the climate "debate" there are scientists on both sides. Feel free to ignore the vast majority of?

Sorry, I overreacted.

At the time, 25 years ago, when allergies were raised as an issue they were taken very seriously by the community and a lot of research was done. Sadly most of it is buried in the applications for release of GMOs which?

All good. Passion about science is a valuable commodity.

OK I'm obviously not communicating well this morning, sorry.

I can't refute all of Heinemann's objections because it isn't my field of expertise.?

For pakeha in NZ this mainly means the Judeo Christian tradition

Well you make it sound like pakeha are one big fat amorphous blob and one wobbly flank is exactly like the wobbly arse. Well we ain?t?

Yes. I mean it's not as if scientists who work at AgResearch could possibly be biased on this subject.

It is. And outside where?

sadly, yes

I am currently trying to convince people in industry that my research group has something to offer them. We've shown certain processes to work in the lab, and now we want to see if they work outside the lab.

We have peer-reviewed work that supports our goodness, and international?

Yeah, that's kind of what historical claims are about. You know: *history*.

And outside where?

+1. So terribly sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, andin, but where on earth do you suggest claims should be heard?

This is where the great science communicators come in. The natural story tellers. Also, just out and out salespeople and marketers. I have a lot of respect for people?

Really? That is seriously the first time I've ever been targeted with that accusation.

Look I'm all in favour of making sure things get done properly and external review is a?

Of course they are biased. Yeah they work ridiculous hours for about half what they could earn in Aussie and a quarter what their managers earn. They get great science canned at?

Ahh yes, the well-known calming and soporific effects of coffee.

I bet frontline tech support folk wish you were correct about that

I hope you can see how that might be regarded as exaggeration. And it's a short step from there to bias.

Kracklite is on it. Either [The Rth Hon] Professor Lord Winston, or Professor Robert [Winston],?

I accept there will always be bias, the question must be "does the bias affect the conclusions?" and that isn't easy to determine.

And actually speaking as a molecular biologist with over 30 years experience in this field?

Again, I don't follow this closely but isn't there evidence of gene transfer between GM and non-GM horticultural species?

And on science communication, and honesty, and grant funding. In the?

And then there are those that are just involved because they like a good argument!

That is about the only way that exchange can happen... when pollen from a GE crop blows across to, and pollenates a member of the same type of plant.

Eating GE corn is about as likely to contaminate people with 'foreign' DNA as it is?

The Roddenberry Gene has?

or 'escapes' perhaps

He notes that as a medical doctor, when he has to explain things to patients that that directly affect their health in immediate and critical ways (e.g, and crudely speaking: you have cancer and I'll now?

That is about process of implementation. As Lucy notes, there are issues to be resolved there and care to?

Couple of different things going on here.

First and most likely is cross pollination between the same or related species. Yes it does happen and yes it's real. So yes gene?

I think you're missing the point of the precautionary principle. Once there's evidence of harm in the wild it's way too late.

"As far as we know" is just not good enough if you want to claim perfect absence of risk of harm. And?

If that gene is the one that renders the seeds infertile then, "Huston, we have a prolm" (sic)?

And make it all Organiky an stuff
;-)

Homepathically, for sure.

My degree is in the wrong science, but on the face of it that scenario sounds... improbable. How could a gene become dominant if it?

Erm... Magic ;-)

You're right it can't.

There are cases where alleles with negative traits can be maintained in a population as heterozygotes (you have 2 copies of each gene (alleles) heterozygotes have two different copies homozygotes have two copies the same).?

Um not really. But yes kinda.

The reason for the weaselly answer is most organic crops are not elite cultivars for various reasons. Sometimes because for some reason the organic farmers* won't?

I claim the?

No I understand the precautionary principle very well.

But how about we state it a slightly different way. If we abandon technology then a vast proportion of the?

No that isn't what I said. Monsanto has never sued anyone for accidentally having GM crops on their fields. However they sued the arse off people?

Haven't there been instances of the trait "herbicide resistance" moving from your crop (where you want the resistance) into (related?) non-crops ("weeds") where you don't want it?

And can this cause problems---for example having to escalate the use or "strength" or amount of?

Once there?s evidence of harm in the wild it?s way too late.

That's a claim that is often made. But there really is no evidence to back it up. It is made as if these GM?

Nothing to do with copyright. You said:

So the issue becomes if you don't want to grow GM crops for some reason you have a problem. But bear in mind it is only a problem because organic farmers have decided that growing GM crops?

That's more responsible language than the absolutes you have been using.

I'm not pushing for zero harm. However if you want to introduce a new organism that has no solid historic baseline of field evidence about risks then it makes sense to err on the side of?

and you'd think science might learn from antibiotic-resistant bacteria..

kiwifruit?

Ah I see your point. Setting aside?

Meh kiwifruit is small potatoes in term of crop land. It's also not what I would call a modern crop, it essentially is a wild species still, almost no inbreeding at all. It's more a case of moving a wild plant from one part of the world to another.?

Yeah, one consideration of many. Profit might be another one, I guess... ;-)

I consciously use absolute language when discussing this in the public. I would never use such absolutes in scientific discussions. The reason is because of the language being used by opponents of science.

Contamination and pollution are just two?

I think there were claims (or fears) that those toxins could be toxic for people and other animals, not?

Not our fault. Your government has insisted all research in NZ must demonstrate a profit for a NZ business.

But most of us just want to make better food. More nutritious. Less damage to the environment. Less land used to grow the same food.

Farm?

I haven't seen anything in the literature that describes that. I don't read all the literature (heh) so if?

Once they go up who cares where they come down?

Oh I agree. I've encouraged some to use firmer language about their specialty in public media myself. However being more certain than the field warrants doesn't help either.

See, that's a pretty good message.

But the actual herbicides that the herbicide-resistant plants get drenched in, I'm thinking that's the toxic part.

Worth remembering that we?ve been eating GM crops?

Snap, Crackle, Pop!
Breakfast foods grow odder and odder
It?s a wise child that knows its fodder.

-Ogden Nash

[he also produced a Latin version of this, of which I can remember only the title, Strep, Crep, et Frag!]

That would be glyphosate which is less toxic than table salt. The formulations usually contain detergents which is what give each brand its point of difference. Not great to drink detergent but not?

You know that those problems are exactly what we are trying to solve using GM. All those problems come from existing culture methods. GM, particularly of minor crops allows them to produce at levels that make them viable, they also allow less?

I have a weird gift/synchronistic sense?
I go to secondhandbook shops/recycle centres ? and there it is! The one I?ve looked for!*
That?s called ?library angels? in other circumstances.

Most recent: I was talking to my mother about Kilgore Trout and she was?

Wait – isn't Kilgore Trout a fictional author??

ETA:?

but ? ?library angels?? I know they exist and I am fairly sure they have to do?

And yet all of this is true of some organic farming. In particular, I'm not sure that the organic pesticides are less nasty than some of the mainstream ones. (And I'm obviously not?

got you

Actually, when the Lord is the title held by the younger son of a Duke ("Lord Peter Whimsey") the correct usage is Lord?

Concentrations not worrying, apparently, but clearly something to be aware of....and further research around accumulation etc. I guess necessary, given the effects these toxins, in higher concentrations, can have (see?

Great!

To quote myself in the same post: ?we are trying to figure out how the big bang would have worked if string theory is true, and whether the string theory version of the big bang leads to a universe with distinctive properties which?

And smoking doesn't cause cancer, you know.

that multiple bangs model blew my mind

Unlike the author of that column, I will not purport to comment on the scientific claims it cites.

I would, however, note that the co-author of the study referred to, Dr Roy Spencer, is not just?

fair and balanced

Just in case you weren't joking I can recommend Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe as a starter for string theory. You can also get the TV version in case you have an aunt in America who might have taped it for you.

No it's not a copout. If I never tried to explain my work and this was the reason I gave then it would be a copout.

It is however, the reason I fail when I try to explain my work. I'm not as good?

Thanks for that. Not a paper I had seen. As stated in the paper levels are 1000 fold lower than those?

What do you mean by civilising? Globalisation hasn?t alleviated hunger, and it?s been hugely damaging to the environment.

ETA: I?m happy to absorb anyone?s surplus of cape gooseberries! Yum! :-)

If you want to know how to include the word "Alarmist" fourteen times in a relatively short blog post read this article.

I'd also argue that those places most 'hungry' in the world have the least involvement in the process of 'globalisation'.

We know, for example that many people are scared of flying, while?