Call me a bleeding heart liberal (you wouldn’t be the first) but I am astounded by the media coverage of the riots and I have watched a fair few hours over here today and not just the beeb. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone the destruction and looting but the broadcasting of people’s messages about missing a football game or cancelling a trip North seems to completely miss the point. Yes, there are angry people whose lives have been disrupted and in some cases completely devastated by recent events but it might be nice to ask the bigger question that no-one seems to want to answer, which is WHY?

If I hear another Tory MP refer to it as social media rioting or another irate person asking where the parents of these kids are then I might hand my own television out the window to someone. To whom I don’t know because it’s highly unlikely Brighton would ever join in the riots, it would ruin its reputation as alternative.

Far too much conjecture and not enough reporting – and yes I know all the issues surrounding getting an interview from a brick throwing looter.
Anyway, Sarah Carr puts it way more eloquently than I ever could.

It doesn't help that "talking politics" here is blaming Boris Johnson and "Call me Dave" Cameron for not coming home earlier and how these riots are going to affect London's Olympic reputation as was the theme of BBC Newsnight over here.

Oh, and forgot to ask earlier. Is there any way I can see this week's show over here in the UK? To be fair I haven't tried but I am sure there is some geographical exclusion zone on TVNZ programmes.

Here's an interesting article from The Guardian this morning...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/02/scientists-ghostwritten-articles-fraud

One of the issues with academic research is the reliance on peer review to give credence to the research and anyone who has had any experience with peer review will realise there are some pitfalls with this approach.

Anyway, another way in which science is complicated.

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, physicist

I’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.

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