The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know 514
First time accepted submitter burtosis writes Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). From FiveThirtyEight: "The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science, but that doesn't mean the public supports the conclusions that scientists draw. The biggest gap between scientists and the public came on issues that may elicit fear: the safety of genetically modified (or GMO) foods (37 percent of the public said GMOs were safe, compared to 88 percent of scientists) and the use of pesticides in agriculture (28 percent of the public said foods grown with pesticides were safe to eat, versus 68 percent of scientists). There was also disagreement over the cause of climate change (50 percent of the public said it is mostly due to human activity, compared to 87 percent of scientists). Here’s a full list, via Pew Research Center, of the scientific issues the survey asked about."
More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Funny)
"Scientist" is a woefully ambiguous term. As I scientist, I think GMO food is perfectly safe. I am a nuclear scientist and know little about the GMO process, but that doesn't matter. My opinion does.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Chemical and Biological Engineer and overall I think that GMO food is safe. I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person.
I think that is where the major difference comes in.
Many normal people don't research anything and have very strong opinions. Most scientists and engineers I know do tend to do research before holding a viewpoint.
Most scientists and engineers I know also find other scientists and engineers they trust in other fields and will accept the more qualified persons viewpoint if it seems reasonable. Most mechanical engineers trust my viewpoint more on chemical and biological stuff and I trust theirs more on aerodynamics.
It makes sense to listen to more qualified people.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be safe to eat, but there are other issues with GMO food than that. Setting loose genes in the environment for other organisms to pick up for example. Or patent issues with companies like Monsanto. Those are much less decided by science.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Computer Science major, I worry more about the patenting of plants; the copyright of the genetic structure; the terms of licenses imposed by the giant GMO firms; the common use of sterile plants to prevent that "IP" from escaping the farms. They may be safe to eat, but "safe" to me means we won't intentionally repeat the potato famine.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
Sterile plants are almost never used.
Monsanto developed that system and last I checked they had NEVER used it for any regular seeds. It was only used in test fields to prevent genes escaping into the wild during testing.
My view on gene patenting is that any natural gene should not be patent able but the process for insertion should be. However, for any custom developed gene that should be patent able.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
The only issue there is that if pollen blows into my field, I don't think it is reasonable that I have to pay you a licensing fee.
Take for example a bull that breaks through a fence and breeds with some of my cattle. Do I have to pay a breeding fee for you bull's "service" to my herd? No.
And the thing is that Monsanto has done that in the past. What is more, they'll have funny genes that will not only not fertilize my crops but will literally make them sterile. There are terminator genes that won't breed true. And so that bull that hopped the fence not only bred with my cattle but effectively implanted defective genetic material that will miscarry.
In regards to corn specifically, the GMO corn should probably not produce pollen. Or if it does, that pollen has to not screw up non-GMO corn and has to not incur any fee to Monsanto etc.
If a farmer is just trying to grow his crops and wants nothing to do with the whole thing, these GMO crops often make that very difficult. If the GMO crops don't spread their DNA to non-GMO crops then they're fine. I really don't have a problem with GMO in theory. The issue is that in practice it tends to have a lot of problems that are not okay.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Informative)
The only issue there is that if pollen blows into my field, I don't think it is reasonable that I have to pay you a licensing fee.
Take for example a bull that breaks through a fence and breeds with some of my cattle. Do I have to pay a breeding fee for you bull's "service" to my herd? No.
And the thing is that Monsanto has done that in the past...
I believe you've been misled. If you can cite and example that'd be great. The one that got me up in arms was back when Percy Schmeiser lost in court against Monsanto for exactly this. His case was famous at the time, until I brought it up with my family that actually are farming. He's basically the only case I'm aware of where the claim of cross pollination led to a lawsuit by Monsanto. The truth though, is that Percy collected his own seed from his crop normally. Then, his neighbour planted round-up ready Canola beside his own field. Contrary to the story that you and I are told by the GMO fear mongers, his field was NOT accidentally contaminated. Percy actually went along the edge of his field that was shared with his neighbour, and sprayed the entire strip with round up, killing everything he planted but keeping enough of seeds that made it to the edge of his field from his neighbour's. Percy then collected the surviving plants to plant as seed. He deliberately and purposely set out to acquire the GMO seed and went to extreme lengths to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
So long as we agree that contamination and claiming ownership of fields due to contamination is unacceptable, I will consider we are in agreement.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:4, Informative)
Why did the courts believe that those seeds were not his? They were on his property. If those seeds were not backed by a state issued monopoly (patent), there is no issue what seeds he wants to collect on HIS property.
Which is a totally valid complaint. The courts and legal system disagree and belief that patents should be allowed in this case though.
The point I was drawing was that Percy didn't accidentally start planting the patented seeds, he deliberately and intentionally set out to get his hands on the patented seed instead of his own that he'd been growing before. It was NOT, as has been falsely portrayed, a suit against some poor guy that tried to replant his own seed that got contaminated against his wishes.
Re: (Score:3)
Your bias is showing. There is nothing legally, morally or ethically wrong with "deliberately and intentionally" culling seeds from your own land and selectively breeding them. You are trying to make it look like doing what he did was wrong. It was not. It is only legally wrong if you're too poor to afford justice.
Which is why I began my post stating that is a totally valid complaint.
The claim up thread was that a farmer just trying to use seed he grew himself was suddenly attacked in court because his field had been contaminated. I was pointing out that the only case I'm aware of even resembling that, was very different. I merely observed that the farmer being sued, very intentionally and deliberately sought to collect seed exclusively and only from the contaminated plants and no other.
I must also point out your wor
Re: (Score:3)
Monsanto developed that system and last I checked they had NEVER used it for any regular seeds. It was only used in test fields to prevent genes escaping into the wild during testing.
That's correct. I'd like to know who first got the public all excited about the terminator gene. It's obviously a self-regulating problem; if the terminator gene somehow crosses over into another population, those plants don't breed and they don't carry the gene forward. We should have demanded the terminator gene be emplaced in every GMO organism, and yes, without exception. Instead, someone convinced the people that this gene was a threat to life on earth, even though elementary school biology shows other
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario: terminatored corn is widely succesful and replaces regular corn. Something bad happens to stop Monsanto from delivering more seends. What will the farmers plant? They can't use seeds from terminatored corn since they're infertile, and they can't plant regular corn seeds since they no longer have any. Mass starvation follows.
Planned obsolescence in vital systems is a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that scientist B is guilty of patent infringement and should probably be prosecuted for it but only if the therapy was for sale on the market at a reasonable price (based on cost to develop etc).
However, any children that resulted from that patent would be completely free and clear in my view. They had no part in it. I would even extend that to other animals and plants so long as profit is not being made from the patent violation.
If you violate the patent and create a plain strain that you then
Re: (Score:3)
What I don't like is a company patenting something just to keep anyone from using it.
I don't think it should be legal to buy a competing technology for instance and then license it so high or refuse to license it such that the technology is dead until the patent has expired. Too many technologies related to battery technology have been slowed down that way.
What I would be looking for is a serious effort to sell the patented product and actual people paying for it. if it is determined that you don't hold the
Re: (Score:3)
Usually they force compulsory licensing rather then strike down the patent though I believe in the past patents have been basically nationalized and generally the threat is enough to lower patent fees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
There is poison in everything you eat. The skins of potatoes are naturally poisonous, the seeds on strawberries are naturally poisonous. However, the health benefits in these items outweigh the damage the poison does. Like everything how a poison impacts you depends on the dosage.
Lots of poisons are safe for humans at the levels we ingest them. There is no way you could eat any food without dealing with some level of poison.
The rat study you mentioned has LONG since been discredited and not been replicable by other experts in the field. The scientist that did the work is largely considered to be a fraud in the field and at this point articles published under his name are no longer accepted by reputable journals and he has resorted to destroying students reputations in the field instead by getting them to submit his articles under their names.
The paper in question was retracted http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com] and is widely considered to be fraudulent.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no health benefit to taking a perfectly useful plant and adding more poisons to it.
There could be, if the poison displaces a chemical pesticide that is more harmful. Bt corn is an example.
We already grow more than enough food.
Then higher productivity can allow us to grow the same food on fewer acres, leaving more fallow land for wildlife.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no health benefit to taking a perfectly useful plant and adding more poisons to it. It doesn't matter if it's what occurs in the planet naturally or some other product that someone wants to sell to your local farmer (Roundup).
We already grow more than enough food. We have been letting food rot in order to prop up commodities prices since before you were born.
Wrong. Take our most basic food we consume, water. Standard practice is to load it with a poison, chlorine, to kill the bacteria like E Coli in it for the benefit of not getting sick from the water.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.
It may be an extremely small sample and anecdotal, but it makes a lot of sense. I recall having small gardens growing up, and we always bought seeds every year. Plus, farmers want consistent crops every year and better yields if they can, they don't want some wild child of something they started growing 10 years ago when Monsanto has created a new product that makes more money for them.
I would think a sterile plant would be a good thing for modern farmers, who want's corn stalks popping up in a soy bean field. Farmers rotate their crops, I used to remember scenes like this growing up. I don't see them as often now.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Informative)
I can second you anecdotes with my own. Having grown up on farms I've had the exact same experience. I went off to university when Monsanto was just rolling out round-up ready Canola. I got pretty worked up over their patent policies and was eager to reminisce with all the guys back home who where farming. Turns out universally they were all more than happy to buy Monsanto's seeds as it just made them far more money than other approach. More over, as pointed up thread, the only ones Monstanto was suing were guys trying to use Monsanto's seed for free, and the guys willing to buy the seed had no sympathy.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever spoken to farmers?? The half dozen farmers I've talked with all say the same thing (I grew up in a small, rural community), most of them were older than 60 and had been farmers for decades. They don't have the time, money, or resources to collect, process, and store seeds, they always buy them. These guys LOVE GMO crops because of the increased yields and predictability.
This stuff is great, until we find out we are cultivating super-weeds. Google "Roundup Ready resistance". Eventually, we'll have to find a different chemical to control weeds. Then another. Then another.
Complete side note, but organic farmers have started using water jets to get rid of weeds. Even more they have been adding things like corn gluten to the pressure weeders to fertilize at the same time as they cut. The gluten helps kill the weeds too.
The downside is that it's at least a two person job. Someone has to drive while another aims and shoots. No known resistance has been developed to a high pressure water jet.
Disclaimer: I am not anti GMO. I am however, concerned about pesticide resistance, and the concept of engineering plants to allow us to use more pesticides, which is a fine way to accelerate resistance. I also eat organic as much as possible because I think it tastes better - but harbor no delusions of us feeding the world that way.
Re: (Score:3)
So, we shouldn't use glyphosphate because plants could become resistant and then we can't use glyphosphate? That doesn't make much sense.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
This I agree 100% with.
This is why I can't support the GMO labeling laws I keep seeing. So many just want to label something as GMO which is just based on fear and does not lead to any understanding.
For ALL kinds of food (organic, gmo, etc) I want to know exactly what is in the food. I want to know the DNA sequence so I can search it or write an app to test it against things i don't want. That is true for GMO and Organic foods. Remember that pink grapefruit was a random mutation. There was no guarantee it would be safe. Same with organic certified chemical mutagens used on organic foods.
I want all food help to the same high standard. Not this fear based approach that thinks that GMO is different.
Re: (Score:3)
The more we learn the harder the science gets. Mostly we end up working on harder and harder problems and many things we are doing today is at the very edges of what we can do. We are at the point where we are designing systems based on atomic arrangements. We can even change the types of bonds being formed not just the atomic arrangements.
No amount of testing with ever catching everything and realistically during the development of new technology we are probably going to kill a lot of people. However, at t
Re: (Score:2)
It may be safe to eat, but there are other issues with GMO food than that. Setting loose genes in the environment for other organisms to pick up for example.
No one has genomic techniques to successfully create a protein from whole cloth. All GMO techniques involve transferring an existing gene into a species that lacks that gene. eg, "Roundup ready" crops contain an Agrobacterium enzyme to supplement their own EPSPS (enolpyruvylshikimate-phosphate synthase). So if your concern is just that these genes are "in the environment," then they already were.
Their commercial use greatly increases the quantity of those genes in the environment, in the same way that co
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Interesting)
No one has genomic techniques to successfully create a protein from whole cloth.
That used to be true, but science marches on...
http://www.princeton.edu/main/... [princeton.edu]
Informed by whom? (Score:2, Informative)
You sez:
I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person
Okay, as a person of Science, lemme try ask you, a fellow Scientist, the following ...
1. How do you know your view is "FAR more informed than the average person"?
2. You said you were "FAR more informed", so ...
2a. Who was the one informed you?
2b. And how do you know what you have been informed is correct?
Re:Informed by whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
You sez:
I would also like us to use more nuclear power. My views on nuclear power are less informed than my knowledge of GMO is. However, my views on nuclear power are still FAR more informed than the average person
1. How do you know your view is "FAR more informed than the average person"?
2. You said you were "FAR more informed", so ...
2a. Who was the one informed you? 2b. And how do you know what you have been informed is correct?
I don't know about the education system where the GP lived, but generally those becoming well educated and capable in a specialist subject tend to be better educated and more capable than average in other fields. I am a nuclear engineer but did not even specialise in it until my third job. So I would claim similarly to the GP that (1) I am much more informed on subjects outside nuclear engineering, both in science and the humanities, than the average person. That is simply because I had a liberal education to a significantly further level than the average person. Even to be accepted on my course to study engineering I had also to have studied (and passed the exams in) sciences other than maths and physics, foreign languages (plural), English to the same level as someone entering a university course in it, and certain other humanities subjects. (2a & b) At that time I was taught these other subjects at a good school, and that knowledge had been confirmed by what I have seen and heard ever since.
Also a factor is the inherent tendency of scientists (in the broadest sense to include engineers) to find out about and question things, leading to more and more knowledge being acquired through life, knowledge which tends to be missed by the average person who is more likely to spend as much free time as possible being entertained.
Re: (Score:2)
And to some, "research" means gathering evidence, conducting experiments, interpreting the results, publishing, getting peer-review, incorporating peer review and possible re-publishing.
To others, it means reading a bunch of unattributed stuff from the web.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Funny)
I am a computer scientist, and I'd like to make a game about a nuclear reactor that melts down and makes GMO food come alive and attack humanity, which I'd sell in the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a Noetic Scientist, and I think you're all crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
I am also a Mathematician and none of this adds up.
Re: (Score:3)
overall I think that GMO food is safe.
So you, and other scientists, don't "know", as TFA suggests. I'm not trying to troll, but a majority of scientists having the same general feeling on the topic doesn't ammount to settled science. Relativity is settled science -- it, or at least major aspects of it, can and have been proven. The same cannot be said for some of the topics cited.
To be fair, TFA actually refers to an "opinion gap" rather than referring to "what scientists know".
Arrogance (Score:3)
Why should I hold your opinion on something outside your field of expertise in higher esteem just because you are an engineer? My neighbor down the street may be just as well read on the subject, but may be a mechanic, but you posit that your opinion is more valuable to society because you are a scientist/engineer? I would assume, you have empirical data to support that premise.
I go to my doctor when I am sick. If I needed advice about nuclear engineering, I'd go to a nuclear engineer. Likewise, for othe
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:5, Insightful)
Your average person has well-founded and valid opinions on what they know.
I rarely find that to be true. Average people tend to have highly biased and largely un-researched opinions even within their area of expertise. My father is a farmer, but knows very little about GMOs. He does have very strong opinions in favor of GMOs but if you investigate you quickly find there isn't much basis for those opinions other than it saves him money (you would get a blank stare if you said the term bio-diversity for instance). I had a brother in law who was an auto-mechanic although he still wasn't a very good source of information when choosing a vehicle. Far too many personal biases.
It is very rare for people to thoroughly research almost anything. I remember people saying how things like home ownership, marriage, and parenting are things you simply cannot properly prepare for until you experience it. Although I have done all three and it really was possible to research and plan for all three well enough that there were no surprises. Although my daughter isn't even one year old yet, so I still have plenty of time to be wrong about that one.
Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score:4, Interesting)
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
Re:More ambiguous cruft: hardly. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think paycheck corruption in science today is even worse, like with the CAGW promoters.
IF that were true, then the climate scientists who know the "truth" would be able to get all the grants they want from the fossil fuel industry and "clean up" or least get a paycheck.
See, if global warming were in fact a hoax or even over-blown, the oil, gas, and coal industries would be handing out grants like candy with their unlimited money. I wold expect to see the battles like the cigarette industry put up.
But they are not. They only thing they have is press releases and propaganda - usually attacking AGW on political grounds (like increased taxes or some other nonsense.)
Which tells me that there is nothing there scientifically for them.
The evidence is conclusive: human caused global warming is fact.
Re:More ambiguous cruft: hardly. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly this.
What's funny is that when Climate Change Skeptics, the Koch Brothers, funded their own study [berkeleyearth.org] and planted an outspoken critic of climate change science as the director of the research, that skeptic ended up becoming a believer and published an Op-Ed in the NYT [nytimes.com] explaining how wrong he had been to not accept the science.
But somehow people still find a way to rationalize it all away as just the invention of a bunch of wealthy limousine-riding scientists keeping down those poor, defenseless oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still an interresting list, since on average most respondants would be scientists in other fields for any given question.
It shows the attitude of the general population and scientists with regards to subjects neither have expertise in.
Re:More ambiguous CULT (Score:3, Interesting)
"Scientist" is a woefully ambiguous term. As I scientist, I think GMO food is perfectly safe. I am a nuclear scientist and know little about the GMO process, but that doesn't matter. My opinion does.
Good point. The glaring assertion that the sanctity of scientific authority would carry forth across disciplines, and that those in different branches of science carry more weight than say --- a layman who has put effort to research a specific subject --- is dubious.
One might even say this tabloid appeal to authority is religious... but I would not grace it like that. I have too much respect for my religious friends. I may not share their faith but I can easily see that they deliberately and carefully ch
Re:Science isn't based on opinions: Like HELL! (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but generally any scientist* trusts the scientific method and experimental evidence over other methods of coming to a conclusion. There are a few exceptions with biases (climate scientists paid to parrot big oil's talking points, for example), but generally scientists try to discover the truth, whether or not it conforms with their world beliefs.
No.
The book 'Big Fat Surprise" [amazon.com] in its explanation of how the dietary guidelines of how a low fat diet isn't backed by good science, showed how the scientific process was derailed by egos of scientists, eminent people, scientific politics, and group think in the scientific community - as well as lots of money from the big food companies.
Blame politics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the general public get most (all) of their information about science from sources that have a particular goal in mind when it comes to how that information should be interpreted. First a fear is created, because fear sells, and then they offer a politics based (rather than facts based) answer, because relief also sells.
Further, people won't listen to scientists, but they will listen to news anchors and politicians, because fiction is far easier to understand than facts.
Re:Blame politics (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't help when scientists pushing the fear also push the politics.
Also, its not fiction that is easier to understand. Its how it does or does not impact your daily life directly or indirectly enough for the near future. That is what politicians and news anchors do.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Scientists don't push fear, scientists publish articles in journals, and then argue over methodology and interpretation. Politicians push fear, and then lord their position and power over the people who they nominally serve.
whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:5, Insightful)
>. Politicians push fear, and then lord their position and power over the people who they nominally serve.
Which one should keep in mind when looking at science. Scientists being paid by a grant from Phillip Morris (tobacco) or All Gore tend to publish conclusions that are likely to get the grant renewed. A lot of people I work with are top experts
in their field, whose jobs are dependant on a federal grant getting renewed. Guess how many of them published information that makes the grantor unhappy last year. Hint - it's a round number.
Re:whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:5, Informative)
No.
BS.
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Re:whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:4, Informative)
Instead of adding it all up over the last couple of decades, it would be more fair to look at the yearly budget. The budget for climate change science was about $2 billion in 2010, and on average somewhat less than in the years before that. That doesn't sound like a whole lot for a potential game changer.
Re:whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:5, Informative)
> A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research
Im staring at the Forbes report at http://www.whitehouse.gov/site... [whitehouse.gov]. Note that a lot of that money is involved in "clean" energy projects which have dual or triple use: reducing pollution, improving arable land, water management, emergency planning for coastal areas, and switching from unsustainable fuel resources to sustainable, less greenhouse gas producing fuels.
I'm also afraid you're comparing apples to oranges. Most of the federal budget is not "advertising" to compare to oil companies, it's a great deal of real work with multiple scientific. urban development, and economic uses. If you compare it to the amount of money oil companies spent on drilling for new oil or on research to expand their markets, you'd have a better scale.
Re:whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:5, Informative)
That is true, but without understanding what the GAO report was covering it can be a bit misleading. Here is a bit of a graphic summary. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/... [gao.gov]
First it is important to note the 106B was over like a 20 year period. It is also important to note, that 106B wasn't all for science (in fact only the minority of it was). That number was the full amount they could attribute towards any are of work on climate change. In the above link the break it down into science, technology, and international assistance. So this covers FAR more than what one would first think of if they were told 106B went to climate change research. Research into clean coal? That would be counted. Nuclear, that would be counted. Research into better batteries for electric cars, that is counted. Research in to solar/wind, that is counted.
You can dig into the reports further to get a more detailed understanding. The point is simply saying climate change got 106B may sound like "oh my god climate researchers are getting rich!!!!". However, when you understand what the report really covers (long period of time and only a small portion goes to what you'd normally thing of as climate research) it does change the perspective a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is simply saying climate change got 106B may sound like "oh my god climate researchers are getting rich!!!!". .
The argument is not "OHM those climate researchers are getting rich!!!"
The argument is "those evil, rich oil companies have so much more money to throw at creating biased research studies!" The counter argument the GP made was "the GAO says the US alone is spending many orders of magnitude more on climate change research".
Re: (Score:3)
Even if true, which I highly doubt, it has absolutely zero relevance.
Again, the notion that scientists are all corrupt bastages that simply deliver predetermined products is stupidity, which is about normal for you.
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Complete faith in a single scientist is not required. It is clear that most people have a bias, but as long as these are diverse enough, errors due to these biases will correct themselves.
Re: whose payroll is the scientist on? It matters (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read a lot of journal articles, and granted, they arne't Science or Nature since I don't have expertese in those fields, but more like IEEE transactions. In those journals, I'm always shocked as to the piss poor quality of the a lot of the articles. And honestly, some of the most interesting articles I've read weren't in top tier journals. They went against the mainstream and IEEE wouldn't touch them. If you think groupthink isn't a thing in science, you're massively naive.
Re: (Score:2)
> It doesn't help when scientists pushing the fear also push the politics.
Given the resistance to basic knowledge, informing the public and other scientists is part of their role as scientists proving their science. Given their humanity, getting other humans to act on that knowledge to make money, improve lives, or prevent disaster is a logical and natural behavior. Why would you be surprised if, in some cases, it goes beyond mere publication to outright political advocacy?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised at all when that happens.
However, I also don't take what someone says as gospel truth when they're pushing an agenda, even if they're a scientist....
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of science involves highly technical information. A bit of nutrition science about weight loss might actually involve biochemistry that is complex to understand for biochemists, let alone someone not holding an advanced degree in biochemistry.
The "general public" can't possibly be expected to actually understand or evaluate the study's findings or methodology let alone the implications of the findings, which may actually raise more questions than they answer, especially if they contradict or raise qu
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of science involves highly technical information. A bit of nutrition science about weight loss might actually involve biochemistry that is complex to understand for biochemists, let alone someone not holding an advanced degree in biochemistry.
That is such bullshit.
Some scientific matters are complex, but so are a lot of economical and political issues. The difference is that in the latter types, knowledge on the subject is valued: people look up to you at parties if you (seem to) be knowledgeable on the subject. Knowledge on the harder sciences is still 'nerd knowledge', i.e.: it won't get you any pussy ;-)
The result of this stance towards the different types of knowledge is that scientific matters are brought as coming from a weird outside grou
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, when the Priests of the God SCIENCE! spend much of their time telling people they shouldn't have faith in older God(s), it's unlikely that they'll convince people to have faith in the new God....
The scientists aren't tell you to have faith in them, they're telling you to have faith in the process. Odds are sharply against you being smarter than scientific consensus. But if you can't get this right in spite of the propaganda that you clearly swallowed because it makes you feel better about your inadequacies, what hope does the average person have?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we just see the Doomsday Clock adjusted? Tell me, what was the "process" that they used? Or did they just go with "we're Atomic Scientists (tm), we know this shit"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why have experts if you're not going to believe them?
The key point about scientific experts is that can someone CAN potentially disprove them, unlike the priests of a religion.
Re: (Score:3)
The public thinks? (Score:3)
That's news to me. I didn't think the public could think :P
Re:The public thinks? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's news to me. I didn't think the public could think :P
Pro tip: you're a member of the public.
how many times have scientists been wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past after some drug or chemical had been around for thirty some years and it took that long to gather data. And meanwhile a lot of people died painfully diseased deaths
Re:how many times have scientists been wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
I notice that you don't balance how many times scientists have been wrong against how many times they've been right. What do you suppose a scientist's wrong:right ratio is as compared to a non-scientist's?
Re: (Score:2)
He's an AGW denier. You do the math. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Vital information lacking... (Score:2)
It would help enormously if the survey makers would kindly supply the correct answers to those questions (along with some indication of confidence intervals) so we could judge whether the "scientists" or the general public had got it right.
(Hint: in most cases I suspect the correct answer is "Please could you ask a more specific question that could lead to a meaningful answer, not one borrowed from a tabloid headline?")
E.g. I don't worry about dropping dead because I've eaten a GM tomato, I worry more abo
Re:Vital information lacking... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sound thinking there. The GMO crops "raison d'etre" is to sell more weedkiller, eh? So farmers willingly buy this more expensive GMO crop JUST so they can buy more weedkiller? Yeah, that makes sense. Or maybe Monsanto is making this GMO crop JUST so it can sell more glyphosphate, which has no patent protection and is dirt cheap? Yeah, that makes sense. And of course, before GMO crops they weren't spraying pesticides everywhere, right? And those pesticides could never have affected insect populations, right? And, oh yeah, Monsanto destroyed every food crop except their own, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned about nutrition. Companies and farmers keep modifying or breeding crops of grow faster, grow better, taste better (meaning more sugar), and grow in harsher environments. They never breed plants to be more nutritious
Right, but the fix to this is just to go back to the old varieties, and produce the food closer to the point of consumption. That in turn would require either more indoor vertical gardening (the logical conclusion of our current extractive farming processes anyway) or moving more people away from the parts of the country which won't produce food. Because you left out one of the most important criteria when breeding plants today, will they make it to market. That's why you only have unripe avocados to choose
Blame it on the media (Score:2)
The media are meant to act as one of the bridges between the scientific communities and the general public but it's an area where they fall well short of the mark.
This reminds me of the study that was done, asking a group of people how well the media reported on their specific subject of knowledge. Most agreed that the media rarely got things right either by omitting essential information (e.g. "dumbing down") or making incorrect assumptions or correlations. The interesting thing is that the same group of p
Re: (Score:2)
Part of that is undeniably incompetence on various journos' parts, but part is also the lack of diversity in who ultimately owns our media. If one owner *cough cough*Rupert Murdoch*cough cough* decides that some scientific result is inconvenient to his business or political goals, all the media outlets that owner controls will lie to their readers/viewers/listeners.
It's not just Murdoch; watch what happens next time Disney wants to buy a copyright extension and see which outlets report on it and how.
For different values of safe. (Score:2)
GM foods are safe*
LMFTFY (Score:2, Insightful)
The Gap Between What The US Public Thinks And What Scientists Know.
Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why people don't trust GMO food for instance, is that it's sometimes impossible to undo mistakes that are made. Scientists tend to have tunnel vision and have made mistakes with global impact in the past. So I don't find this gap surprising at all. People are wary because they think scientists want to mess with the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
People are wary because they think scientists want to mess with the planet.
Yeah, and they do literally want to "mess with the planet". All the time we have interviews where a scientist talks about how some technology with serious ramifications is "cool" because it will let us do X. Well, sure, but it's also chilling because it will also let us do Y and Z. By all means, show some enthusiasm, but temper it so that we know you're not just playing games with the planet. But on the gripping hand, the news media edits things for whatever slant they want, so maybe most of these people ar
And yet the government doesn't follow... (Score:2)
The surveys found broad support for government to spend money on science
And in spite of that, the budgets for NIH, NSF, and DOE - the three largest funding agencies from the federal government for scientific research - has been consistently flat or declining in real dollars over the past decade-plus. If the people support it, they aren't communicating it well through their congressional representatives.
This is silly. (Score:2)
Think? Know? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with the headline here. The presumption is that the public merely thinks, but may be wrong, and scientists actually know facts.
Everyone listens to those whom they respect. Some are taught to respect firebrand preachers; some believe any idiot with a PhD. Some look for truth in Biblical quotes, but can't read; others believe in scientific method, but couldn't explain scientific method if you gave them a cheat sheet.
Example: Is the world flat or round? Well, people we respect say that it is round. But how many average citizens have a clue to the evidence?
Re:Are GMOs safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean Bacillus thuringiensis toxin?
You mean the toxin that is classified as organic and can and is sprayed on plants as an organic pesticide?
You know the one where the only way to harm a human with it is to inhale it as a powder and in that form it causes the same damage as inhaling almost any other powder. Even inhaling sugar as a powder is bad for you.
That toxin is COMPLETELY inert inside humans. However insects and some fish can cleave the protein and can then be killed by the toxin.
The organic version is sprayed on plants, washes off and damages local aquatic life. The GMO version does not wash off and has no impact on local aquatic life. The GMO version also concentrates in the parts of the plant we don't eat.
The organic way of using BT toxin is worse in ALL WAYS than the GMO version.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the toxin that is classified as organic and can and is sprayed on plants as an organic pesticide?
It's entirely possible to have organic cyanide, so that argument is irrelevant.
You know the one where the only way to harm a human with it is to inhale it as a powder [...] That toxin is COMPLETELY inert inside humans
Yeah, this specific fix ain't harmful to humans AFAWCT. But what it has done is lead to more resistant pests.
Re: (Score:3)
That toxin was already sprayed on plants and is still being sprayed on plants. The GMO version has not changed the usage by much at all. What is HAS changed is the amount that runs off into the environment.
Are GMOs safe (Score:2, Insightful)
You are kidding, right? Yes they have been tested.
http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2225-no-health-concerns-for-gmo.html
Re: (Score:2)
You should care BECAUSE they keep you locked in a 2 party system. It matters what the public thinks because you live in a democracy, meaning you are ruled by the people, people who are morons with no idea of how the world works. The only way to improve your situation is to 1) educate the public, or 2) install a dictator with a proper understanding of science and scientific results.
Re: (Score:2)
You cant base laws on opinions - its why violent video games are legal to buy even though many people are of the opinion they are dangerous.
Yeah, except for repressive Eastern regimes like Australia, wait, what? They put a limit on the level of violence acceptable in video games. Guess you can base laws on opinions in Australia.
Until there is actual evidence of them being dangerous, they cannot be legislated against.
Guess you haven't heard of the "precautionary principle" in the EU.
Re:The Public - who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
When talking about the public, you should use the pronoun "we", not "they".
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that GMO foods have more pesticides sprayed on them?
GMOs usually need far fewer pesticides sprayed on them, that is pretty much the point of them most of the time. They also wash off far fewer pesticides to the environment.
Large scale growing tends to use a lot of pesticides regardless of the type of growing that is used. Organic has the image of being all natural and no chemicals etc. That is completely and utter BS.
Now for your home garden that is easy to do organic and without using a lo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GMOs usually need far fewer pesticides sprayed on them, that is pretty much the point of them most of the time.
This depends entirely on the modification. The two most popular GMOs are "roundup ready" and "Bt." Roundup-ready plants are resistant to glyphosate, which allows farmers to use higher amounts of the herbicide. "Bt" plants produce their own insecticide, which allows farmers to reduce their external application of such agents. As glyphosate resistance transfers to weed plants, biotech companies have begun developing resistance to other herbicides: the next step in the evolutionary arms race.
Re: (Score:2)
I do want to do more research on this and actually confirm it. The whole thing seems pretty strange compared to other source I have looked at and I want to be as accurate as possible on this issue since it is closely related to some of the work I do.
pesticides are expensive, so you buy resistant see (Score:2)
Spraying 100 acres box crop with pesticide is expensive. So Farmer Joe hasba choice:
Buy brand X seed and $10,000 of pesticide.
Buy brand M seed and pocket the $10,000.
Which will he do? Now you know why companies like Monsanto produce varieties that need far LESS pesticide, not more.
Re:pesticides are expensive, so you buy resistant (Score:5, Informative)
That's not always correct. Roundup-ready crops sold by Monsanto (for example) are not resistant to pests, they are resistant to herbicides. They let you spray MORE, not less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's not always correct. Roundup-ready crops sold by Monsanto (for example) are not resistant to pests, they are resistant to herbicides. They let you spray MORE, not less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate [wikipedia.org]
You've never farmed I take it? Round up is one of the least expensive, and also very safest to humans. You can drink it and be alright. If you make it a habit you likely increase your cancer risk. As a herbicide, it impacts plants, not animals. More over, if you spray it shortly before or after a rain there's a good chance even the plants won't be impacted to much because it breaks down so fast in water. Even without water after a day or two even plants aren't harmed by it anymore, that's how sage it is. Be
Re: (Score:2)
that's not what it said and you bloody know it, troll.
It said "food grown with pestidies are safe to eat", not "pesticides are safe to eat".
those are two completely different things.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge gap between what we know about sex and gender from science, and what people generally believe about sex and gender.
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I'll just say it; It's post modern feminism
I love the smell of a grinding axe in the morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you've done nothing except make a wild, axe-grindy claim that "feminists" are responsible for something. You haven't even elucidated what you're even blaming them for or why you think they're to blame.
So, while that lack of stuff doesn't make you wrong, it does make you lack credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I did reference Steve Pinker
Specifically, you told me he has written several books. Saying, I have a point but you're going to have to read several books to figure out what the point is never mind the arguments for and against is not really very solid. I mean sure, you might have a point and you might be right, but I'm not going to do several weeks of reading just to find out.
and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism.
The differences
Re: (Score:2)
If you are ACTUALLY interested in scientific literacy, then ask questions on which no major political faction has any stake.
I disagree: if you're willing to spew political talking points than pay attention to actual science, then that is a pretty good measure of being scientifically illiterate because that's more or less ignoring science because you don't like the conclusions it comes to.
Just because someone is politically and culturally invested in the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, doesn't make th
Re: (Score:2)
Look, if you care more about science then your petty political rivalries, then just talk about the scientific issues that are not political.
In a perfect world in which we didn't have to account for politics, what you say would make sense. But we don't live in that world, and so it is a bunch of bollocks. We have to account for the political issues, and wishing otherwise won't change a thing.