Hard News: Science: it's complicated
401 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
The tasty To Mayto..... Entropy?
San Trope.......sans taste....
-
andin, in reply to
And Sacha
And outside where?
+1. So terribly sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, andin, but where on earth do you suggest claims should be heard?
Couldnt there just be a football game and the winner takes all. Yep I'm joking.
My apologies to you and Hillary, I was trying unsuccessfully to make a deep philosophical point. My bad, I failed.
I'll try again in a few months. In the meantime I'll be busy following the bouncing ball, like the rest of the country.
Yep one way or another every NZer will be and if they say anything different. Well I'd say their probably to stuck up for their own good.
Later...when the ball stops bouncing.................... -
recordari, in reply to
Laconophiliac
The saccharine saccharide seeks surly Saracens suffering salacious salicylates from fried green tomatoes.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
:- ) the puns of last resorts...
Worthy of St Richie, it's all about the breakdown
- and coincidentally, Wikipedia notes that...The town’s name derives from that of an early, semi-legendary martyr named Saint Torpes. His legend states that he was beheaded at Pisa during the reign of Nero, and that his body was placed in a rotten boat with a rooster and a dog. The body landed at the present-day location of the town.
..to think they missed the chance to call the town Coq et Chien en Pourri Bateau avec Cadavre sans Tete, I bet the Welsh would've...
Alliterary references...The saccharine saccharide seeks surly Saracens suffering salacious salicylates from fried green tomatoes.
Noice Troy.... :- )
PS I just realised Recordari is also Rare Doric
you don't live in Hellensville do you? - ;- ) -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
A great mystery to me is why cherry tomatoes are so expensive to buy when they are so easy and prolific to grow
I don't know. But my guess is yield. They cost the same to grow as any other tomato plant, my guess is the fruit have to be hand harvested, which is common for eating tomatoes that are greenhouse grown, but I'd also guess they yield maybe 20% of the weight of fruit that bigger tomatoes yield.
Or it could be marketing.
-
The fruits of science...
I wonder if Fairfax are ruing moving so rapidly to hubbing their production and putting all their eggs in the one basket...
No paper today in many centres!
I wonder if they have a Siemens server?
(and who they might've pissed off recently...)
Swan Vesta...
Are NASA getting a tad blasé? I think it was sad that no-one monitored the orbital insertion of their spacecraft Dawn around asteroid Vesta .
Good to know that the Ion Engine is a goer though... -
recordari, in reply to
PS I just realised Recordari is also Rare Doric
you don't live in Hellensville do you? - ;- )As I sit in my Klismos chair, I look out through columns not so rare on fairest Shaman Grind [sic], with a vista of Vastu Shastra.
In Helengrad of old, but not UN-related.
-
As someone who is writing their thesis on new rice varieties for Africa, this has been an absolutely fascinating discussion.
Bart, I have really enjoyed your posts but the quality of debate in general has been exciting (and I really don't mean to come across as a patronising git, even if it sounds that way).
It is interesting that from a development perspective that most of the same debates are going on in developing countries as have been going on in New Zealand over the years regarding new agricultural technologies and GM has certainly opened up some pretty huge doors for that.
NERICA the rice variety I am studying isn't even genetically modified (in the way that lay people consider GM), it is just a cross-pollination of two different rice varieties, but that has not made it immune to controversy and protest despite the fact it has been specifically bred to grow in low rainfall areas in sub-Saharan Africa.However, I think an area we scientists can work on is our eagerness to claim success when we are promoting new technologies, especially agricultural ones that aim to increase productivity. I do think that success at what cost may be a more useful way of approaching things.
Just my two cents anyway
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Just my two cents anyway
Can we have the full dollar? :-) Sounds like you could contribute a lot to this debate.
However, I think an area we scientists can work on is our eagerness to claim success when we are promoting new technologies, especially agricultural ones that aim to increase productivity. I do think that success at what cost may be a more useful way of approaching things.
That's a tough one for all innovators. I don't do science (much), just write software, but claims of increased productivity are legion in the industry. Of course we're proud of what we do and wish to make claims about that. Of course we want to make a mark, for our developments to be meaningful. We also want them to make money, although for the technicians, this is often far less of an issue than simple personal pride in their work.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...although for the technicians, this is often far less of an issue than simple personal pride in their work.
aah! the work ethics of code...
-
Sacha, in reply to
I do think that success at what cost may be a more useful way of approaching things.
A balanced consideration of benefits, risks and costs would be good.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Ignorance is bliss
If that were true Kiwiblog would be a place of joy.
-
His legend states that he was beheaded at Pisa during the reign of Nero, and that his body was placed in a rotten boat with a rooster and a dog. The body landed at the present-day location of the town.
So.....he was a to martyr.
-
Katie R, in reply to
A balanced consideration of benefits, risks and costs would be good
I’m glad you bring up the question of risk (pulls out soapbox)
Basically risk is at the heart of the science is complicated debate. Policy makers want to know exactly how much risk certain new technologies bring (preferably none) and scientists are unable to provide that information, mainly because it goes against the hypothesis-testing nature of the scientific method, and not because they are willfully holding it hostage.
When you think about your average day, so many decisions have been made on your behalf regarding risk. How much contamination in the water supply is safe? How much radiation exposure from mobile phones, x-rays, etc is safe? Another topical one for NZ is the relative safety of the MMR vaccine which when asked alongside the risk of getting the measles probably changes the answer for some people.I find it really interesting that some issues get more attention than others with regard to risk. With mobile phones we know they emit radiation, we also know that radiation can trigger mutations that could potentially be cancerous but the utility of mobile phones seems to outweigh the risk. Or are we just happily in denial? I don’t know. The general fuss over mobile phones flares up every now and again but seems to have very little staying power.
UNLIKE the fuss of GM crops.
Maybe it is because there is an alternative to GM crops but as it has been mentioned previously in the thread, they have been around for decades and are furiously being planted all over the world esp. in developing countries who are crying out for innovative ways in which to increase their yields in seemingly hostile growing environments. As a molecular biologist I understand that gene transfer is just a piece of DNA moving from one plant to another much like it would be done naturally (except for those times when fish genes are put in to strawberries or whatever) and that our diet consists of huge amounts of foreign DNA and so far in my 33 years on Earth I have yet to turn into a cow (literally not metaphorically) or a vegetable from eating their DNA but even knowing this, if I have the choice – and increasingly we don’t – I will choose non-GM every time. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the risk or realise that in certain conditions GM technology is probably better for certain farmers in certain areas but it probably just highlights again the complicated nature of science communication and risk perception.
Then you have the flipside with climate change where there is extensive data showing significant climate trends yet the policy makers waste their time debating whose science is right because it is too costly, or annoying or threatening to big business to actually make a decision either way. In this case the risk to the planet of inaction by default is essentially ignored.
OK that’s enough from me (puts away soapbox)
On a side note. I have to say I did find it very interesting that NZ's most trusted this year were all scientists:
Sir Ray Avery, scientist, inventor,
Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister
Sir Paul Callaghan, physicistI’m not sure there are many other countries where scientists make up the top three but it would also be interesting to see who voted for these. I’m guessing the voting forms were not pinned on the Warehouse noticeboards.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I’m guessing the voting forms were not pinned on the Warehouse noticeboards
I reckon you might be underestimating the public. And most people have a powerful and primal connection with the food they feed themselves and their children.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the relative safety of the MMR vaccine which when asked alongside the risk of getting the measles probably changes the answer for some people
Much like the harms vs benefits for current prostate testing.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
On a side note. I have to say I did find it very interesting that NZ's most trusted this year were all scientists:
I thought the most interesting thing about that poll was how utterly pointless and spurious it was. here are the top 10:
:
1. Sir Ray Avery, scientist, inventor, New Zealander of the Year 20102. Sir Peter Gluckman, chief science advisor to the prime minister
3. Sir Paul Callaghan, physicist, New Zealander of the Year 2011
4. Justice Helen Winkelmann, chief High Court judge
5. Roger Hall, film, TV and theatre actor, playwright
6. Bret McKenzie, comedian, actor, musician
7. Denise L'Estrange-Corbet, fashion designer
8. Jemaine Clement, comedian, actor, musician
9. Simon Gault, celebrity chef, MasterChef judge
10. Tony Kokshoorn, Grey District Mayor
'Most trusted'? WTF does that mean anyway?Sorry Katie, not meaning to sound too harsh here, I've enjoyed the rest of your musings.
-
Andin, please don't stop making deep philosophical points on my behalf. Sometimes it's hard to get the nuances of arguments when we only have digital words to go by, and not the whole person.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I wasn't going to bother responding to that until after the quarter-finals.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Ignorance is bliss
If that were true Kiwiblog would be a place of joy.
In which case, ignorance is strength. And freedom is slavery. And war is peace.
-
Sacha, in reply to
doubleplusgood
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Ignorance is bliss...
In which case, ignorance is strength. And freedom is slavery. And war is peace.
Which also explains why PAS has its fair share of grumpy buggers.
;-) -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Then you have the flipside with climate change where there is extensive data showing significant climate trends yet the policy makers waste their time debating whose science is right because it is too costly, or annoying or threatening to big business to actually make a decision either way. In this case the risk to the planet of inaction by default is essentially ignored.
Which brings me back to a point I made on another thread We have to question the, dare I say veracity?, of the risk to peoples safety in the central city of Christchurch. It seems patently obvious to me that the cost to the local economy, let alone the commercial cost to many individuals and businesses, has not been served well by the blanket ban on entry. The perceived risk, in may cases, has far outweighed any consideration of that cost. I am not saying there is no danger from collapse of many unstable buildings but surely there was and is, a more considered solution that could be enacted to satisfy both risk to people and risk to possessions, commercial or other.
So why, in this instance, has the perceived risk outweighed the cost?. -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
So why, in this instance, has the perceived risk outweighed the cost?
My guess is the political cost of having someone lose their life in the central area would be enormous. When balanced against the loss of livelyhood for say a couple of hundred people there was no politician willing to take that risk.
A slightly more serious answer is that where risk can actually be controlled, say by restricting access to a potentially dangerous site then there is a strong psychological drive to eliminate that risk. The balancing harm to the lives of peoples who really really need access is very difficult to compare fairly with a potential loss of life or even injury.
The much harder case to deal with is where harm occurs in both cases and in both cases the harm is difficult to quantify and also difficult to emotionally grasp. Harm from loss of life is easy to emotionally grasp, harm from loss of income is harder, harm from change in climate even harder, harm from statistics hardest of all.
That's one reason people often resort to metaphors (often very bad ones).
-
st ephen, in reply to
I wasn’t going to bother responding to that until after the quarter-finals.
Didn't he say he supports England? In which case you might have to wait a game or two longer...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.