For some people, there are only two good kinds of science - Climate and Evolution

[FrodosPet]

Food science is bad because of GMO and Monsanto. Medical science is bad because of pharmaceutical companies. Physics is bad because of supercolliders and nuclear power. Astronomy? How many meals could the money spent on telescopes and space probes bought.

The religious right are not the only people who seem to hate or fear science and technological advances.

[Louisiana1976]

1. True dat.

[SidDithers]

2. Huge K&R...nt

Sid

[KT2000]

3. broad brush

condemnation of "others" you have chosen to define through a tiny lens. What would be the purpose of such a post other than a subtle form of name-calling? Not very scientific FrodosPet.

[Avalux]

4. Which group of people are you describing in your first paragraph?

Lots of words, but no clear understanding of the population meeting your purely subjective criteria.

[NuclearDem]

5. Inability to separate science and ethics/economics is a huge problem on the left.

[Notafraidtoo]

8. For most it is just about assurances.

With the exception of a few on the left most of this is just the inability to understand what people suspicious of greed are saying when it comes to these technology's. I love science, I think anything from nuclear to gmo's could be very good things, my concern has everything to do with greedy simple minded rich folks being in full control of these technology's with out being properly regulated and policed.

If you are not suspicious of greedy powerful men than you haven't been paying attention for the past few thousand years.

Give me true accountability and I will be for it all.

This is a lot less of a problem on the left than it is on the right, most Alex Jones anti vaxers anti fluoride etc. people are on the right.

[wyldwolf]

6. when you're right, you're right

[etherealtruth]

7. i have posted links to this article multiple times (it is from 2012)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy/?page=2

Today's denial of inconvenient science comes from partisans on both ends of the political spectrum. Science denialism among Democrats tends to be motivated by unsupported suspicions of hidden dangers to health and the environment. Common examples include the belief that cell phones cause brain cancer (high school physics shows why this is impossible) or that vaccines cause autism (science has shown no link whatsoever). Republican science denialism tends to be motivated by antiregulatory fervor and fundamentalist concerns over control of the reproductive cycle. Examples are the conviction that global warming is a hoax (billions of measurements show it is a fact) or that we should “teach the controversy” to schoolchildren over whether life on the planet was shaped by evolution over millions of years or an intelligent designer over thousands of years (scientists agree evolution is real). Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology.

It remains a good read

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Yeah.

People get comfortable in their assumptions and fear new information which might disrupt them.

[jeff47]

10. Food science is also bad because of "chemicals". (nt)

[hunter]

11. You can find plenty of rot and bullshit in science, no problem.

But generally there's less rot and bullshit in science than other human endeavors, especially compared to banking, the military, and politics.

I wouldn't work for Monsanto. Nope. And I avoid their products. I don't use pesticides in my own home and garden, I watch what I eat too. I think corn grown for animal feed or ethanol is a blight on the landscape.

There's a lot of rot in the pharmaceutical corporations too, pushing expensive drugs that are more dangerous and less effective than inexpensive alternatives. They are also notorious for misplacing research that reflects poorly on a profitable product. I'd like to see generous federal funding of pharmaceutical research, with the results of that research released to the public domain, worldwide, in direct and aggressive competition with the for-profit pharmaceutical industry as it now exists. These corporations spend more on advertising and political favors than they do on actual research, and there research is directed toward profit, not what is best for the public health or the most wretched but rarer diseases.

On the other hand, I take multiple prescription pharmaceuticals daily. I keep up to date on my vaccines too. I got a bad roll of the dice with asthma, allergies, and arthritis. Without meds my mind is not all that dependable either. But maybe that's from eating and drinking and breathing all that "scientific" crap of the fifties and sixties, things like leaded gasoline, plastic additives, polychlorinated biphenyl, and the residues of pesticides that are no longer used.



I'm indifferent to manned space exploration or nuclear power. I don't believe either will "save" the human race. Others may disagree.

Unmanned space exploration is awesome science.

Science in all domains, whether it seems "impractical" at the moment or not, ought to be well funded. Nobody can predict where tomorrow's magic will come from.

[conservaphobe]

12. So true. So sad. And so pathetic. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

13. So, do I hate food science...

since I just want GMOs labeled so people can make a choice?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. Make a choice about whether or not the science is valid, just as the science is valid for

vaccines and climate change?

[awoke_in_2003]

15. Sorry, I meant to have the choice...

as to whether or not I want to buy GMO food. Forgive me if I am leery about trusting Monsanto to say everything they make is safe.

[FrodosPet]

21. I don't think you do. But people who lie and distort as a fear tactic..absolutely!

People should have the right to make INFORMED choices.

To make an INFORMED decision requires CORRECT INFORMATION. I am, and always will be, devoted to the never-ending search for CORRECT INFORMATION. Not that I always have it, but I am always looking for it.

More than any person, religion, institution, philosophy, dogma, or state, I worship the advancement of knowledge. And more than many other places there ARE people who feel the same way here.

Is it so bad to want people to self-examine their facts and ideas?

[BrotherIvan]

23. So you agree with the Koch brothers?

Those who oppose introducing GMO into world agriculture want MORE scientific studies, not less. Until there are independent, real-world, long-term studies, we do not know the impact of these organisms on the environment. We do not know the true impact of the farming practices that the makers of GMOs recommend. This will be one of the most significant changes to agriculture since the threshing machine, wouldn't you like to have major universities and all the unbiased, brilliant minds of the scientific world testing and studying it? If not, why not?

In the last two weeks, we have seen corn that has created resistant insects. The company's answer to this (not) unforseen circumstance: plant non-GMO corn in the same field. What exactly is the advantage to GMO then? There's resistant weeds, problems with cross-pollination, questions about the link between glyphosates and birth defects and possibly kidney disease in field workers. Why is the industry working so hard to shut down all inquiry? Doesn't that set off a few alarm bells?

And yet, all the so-called "pro-science" posters on here have shouted down everyone--calling them anti-science Luddites--who wants MORE testing. Anyone who wants to make sure these problems are not directly related to these new seeds before we let the genie out of the bottle. That is exactly why some countries have banned them: they are not yet convinced and are taking a wait-and-see approach until we know exactly what we are dealing with. Because human health is more important than profit. And yet, your industry talking point is that those countries are just misinformed Luddites as well. Do you think we should them circumvent the decisions of governments and the will of citizens by shoving these products down their throat by strong-arm tactics from our State Department and slipping them into trade deals?

What exactly is the harm in more testing? It is not as if the world will starve tomorrow if we don't put them out on the market immediately. Is profits for corporations which have shown themselves to be in the running for the worst actors so important to you? Do you think the thing that matters most to the world is that a few companies get to patent and organism? And if so, why?

Do you think any companies that completely shut down all independent testing of their product, sighting patent infringement is acting in good faith? Do you think companies that team up with the Koch brothers to oppose GMO labeling bills give a crap about anything but profit?

Let me say this clearly: this fight is not about scientific discoveries. As stated upthread, science is neutral. The fight is over transparency. If you've got a problem with transparency, then you are against one of the FIRST principles of science.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Glad to hear it.

So do I, which is why I support GM labeling. So that consumers can make informed choices with, as you put it, "CORRECT INFORMATION" as to whether or not they want to purchase products that monetarily benefit specific corporate entities involved in the production of same.

[SomethingFishy]

16. And for others there aren't.

What's your point? Why the "Some people say" Fox News Strawman?

[FrodosPet]

18. It is frustrating seeing certain people who call themselves Progressive...

...when they seem to be so opposed to progress.

From the best of their intentions (and by and large, they are noble intentions) they act as an impediment to humanity's growth. Based on their opposition to the excesses and criminality of certain corporations and individuals to their fear of the strange and unknown, they seek to block the advancement of technologies that could help minimize starvation and suffering. They spread disinformation on the tools that we need to realize our species' ultimate question - the one that so much blood and so many tears have been shed for: "Where did all this shit come from?"

As for why this post now? I gotta react when one of my personal heroes, Neil deGrasse Tyson, is being thrown under the bus because he doesn't want people to starve to death.

[BrotherIvan]

17. Straw? Man.

[Chathamization]

19. Some people here seem to think that "science" means "strawmen". Deepak Chopra also claims to be just

following science.

[LWolf]

20. Bullshit.

Science isn't good or bad. It just is. MISUSE of science is bad. MISREPRESENTATION of science, and of the opposition's argument, is unethical.

[redqueen]

22. This.

Facile statements such as those in the OP are meaningless.

[Zorra]

24. The U.S. Bans GMOs, Bee-Killing Pesticides in All Wildlife Refuges

The U.S. Bans GMOs, Bee-Killing Pesticides in All Wildlife Refuges

he U.S. government is creating a safe place for bees in national wildlife refuges by phasing out the use of genetically modified crops and an agricultural pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of pollinators.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System manages 150 million acres across the country. By January 2016, the agency will ban the use of neonicotinoids, widely used nerve poisons that a growing number of scientific studies have shown are harmful to bees, birds, mammals, and fish. Neonicotinoids, also called neonics, can be sprayed on crops, but most often the seeds are coated with the pesticide so that the poison spreads throughout every part of the plant as it grows, including the pollen and nectar that pollinators such as bees and butterflies eat.

“We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy,” James Kurth, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wrote in a July 17 memo.

The move follows a regional wildlife chief’s decision on July 9 to ban neonics in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands by 2016.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-bans-gmos-bee-killing-pesticides-wildlife-refuges-193150944.html

And for others, there is only one good "science"...corporate memos.

[ClarkeVII]

25. I don't get this post

who says all these things? Are you referring to DU?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Seems to be in the

vein of trolling anti-GM folks. I'm still wondering who has been dissing supercolliders and why, though.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Are you confusing science with technology and business practices?

There's plenty of 'food science' that extends beyond the technological uses of genetic modification to manipulate responses to pesticides, and plenty of medical science beyond overpriced drugs that get recalled after a few years because the adverse reactions are becoming too numerous. (And wth is wrong with supercolliders?)

[sadoldgirl]

29. Are we not confusing science with corporations here?

Certainly all, if not then most, of us here would love to see a remedy against the Ebola virus. The corporations or big Pharma are not interested in that until there are as many cases as the flu produces.
Yes, I am absolutely against a lot of herbicides and pesticides, because we cannot afford to lose the bees. However, the corporations make big money with them.

Perhaps we should not pour out the baby with the bath?