Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Given that there are scientists on both sides of the debate, that sounds like the kind of unfounded folk belief that you find so risible among those horrid anti-GE god botherers.
Sigh. Like the climate "debate" there are scientists on both sides. Feel free to ignore the vast majority of the scientific community and believe the few objectors. While it's true there have been times when the scientific community has been proven wrong, they are rare. Oh and you better be damn certain you absolutely trust the motivations of those opposing the accepted view - some of them get paid by businesses with financial interests in opposing the scientific consensus, not all but some.
If anything it is this kind of "scientist" vs "scientist" conflict that is one of the most complex to understand when you are outside the specialist field being debated.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
GMO crops cause allergies
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.
GMO crops are claimed to be a allergy risk above and beyond traditionally developed crops. They are not. With millions of hectares of GMO crops in the ground and decades of consumption it is absolutely clear that there is no allergy risk from the GMO process. There is also a huge amount of research out there trying to find any allergy to GMO - all of which has shown no allergic response to GMO. Please don't reduce the argument to "you can't have looked in every place for Pooh so therefore you can't be certain he doesn't exist", such an argument is beneath you.
As with all food some people somewhere will be allergic but not as a result of the GMO process.
And your comment about lack of precautionary research before release is another example of an objection that is false. GMO crops are the most researched food crop ever produced in human history. If you actually care about human health there are other places to look.
You can play word games if you want and get me to say I can't be 100% sure a food is 100% safe but that is inane and nothing to do with "ethics".
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Megan Wegan,
Ask Emma, she’ll tell you.
Sure, but for some weird reason I feel that is cheating. You use a pseudonym for a reason, whatever it may be. I kinda feel that trying to discover your secret identity is violating some kind of trust.
Yeah and that doesn't make sense to me either but hey it's just the way it feels to me.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Agreed Hilary. It is always worthwhile pausing and examining an ethical consideration. Especially if it is something you haven't considered.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
some belief that was demonstrably false
example?
GMO crops cause allergies is a very simple one, others get more complicated because you start treading on belief systems but a simplification is “God says it’s bad”.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Megan Wegan,
And I’m fairly certain you all know who I am by now.
Nope no clue.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
“Hey are you the Ben Wilson from PAS? Love your work”
There’s always the Blend..
Now because it's 2 wines after dinner and I'm inherently evil, how about everyone says that to Ben at the blend.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Hilary Stace,
ethical researchers in NZ
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.
But a number of times I've been challenged on the ethical nature of my research because it did not consider some belief that was demonstrably false. At that point I'm faced with the dilemma of consideration for what someone else believes (but is false) and the desire to progress the science. There is no winning compromise in such a situation much as I might like there to be.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Oh Gio, you and your facts.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to NBH,
I also tend to think that the concept of a ‘real name’ is a bit devalued online
woof ... er ... I agree
But it never really occurred to me to use a pseudonym because much of my early online presence was on newsgroups where my e-mail address was my name. It seemed odd to disconnect myself from earlier posts, perhaps I should have :).
Gio's point is very well made from so many perspectives.
As for representing my employers, snort. The idea that my opinions are the same as those of the MBAs and accountants who manage the CRI I work in is utterly ludicrous.