Neil deGrasse Tyson

[seemslikeadream]

Meet The House GOP's Anti-Science Committee

ByBENJY SARLIN
PublishedJANUARY 11, 2013, 8:50 PM EST

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) told an audience this week that former colleague Todd Akin was "partially right" when he claimed women resist pregnancy from "legitimate rape." Gingrey has something else in common with Akin -- both used to serve on the House Committee on Science.

The House Science Committee is no sanctuary from scientifically dubious, non-empirical, "truthy" policy positions. Republican committee members have in recent years created an array of controversies over reproduction, climate change, and evolution.
In Gingrey's case, he sat on the Science Committee earlier in his career, and at one time was the ranking member on the Science Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. An OB/GYN, Gingrey is also the current chair of the GOP Doctor's caucus. Here's what he said Thursday about rape, pregnancy and Akin, according to the Marietta Daily Journal:

I've delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, 'Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don't be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.' So he was partially right wasn't he?
For his part, Akin is no longer in Congress, having abandoned his seat to run for Senate against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) last year, but he held a seat on the Science Committee until the day he left. After holding a dominant lead in the polls, Akin's campaign collapsed after he told a reporter that he opposed abortion for rape victims in part because "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

As critics pointed out, a 1996 study published in the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that rape resulted in about 32,000 pregnancies a year. Even Gingrey said Akin didn't have it exactly right: "[T]he fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you're not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman's body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak," Gingrey explained.

Akin wasn't the only sitting committee member to delve into pseudo-science last year. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) declared a holy war against anyone who doubted whether man and tyrannosaurus lived side by side.

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," Broun said at a banquet for a church sporting club. "And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun, who added that "I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old," will remain on the science committee in the 113th Congress.



Nor is it just the rank and file members who have drawn attention with their pronouncements. The outgoing committee chair, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), has suggested that climate change is the product of a mass global conspiracy of scientists -- the overwhelming majority of whom have concluded that burning fossil fuels cause warming -- to obtain grant money. In 2011, he told National Journal he didn't believe climate change was man-made because "I don't think we can control what God controls."

"I'm really more fearful of freezing," Hall said. "And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us [climate scientists are] not basing it on real scientific facts."

That puts him only slightly farther out from incoming chair Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who chastised the "lap dog" media in 2009 for not questioning the scientific consensus on climate change enough.

Smith's vice chairman this year, Rep. James Sensebrenner (R-WI), decried climate change theory as a "massive international scientific fraud" and evidence of what he called "scientific fascism." Another climate skeptic on the committee this year, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), suggested in a hearing that "dinosaur flatulence" might explain historic warming patterns.

5 Anti-Science Congressmen On The House Science Committee

January 14, 2013 4:08 pm


(Photo by Republican Conference/Flickr)

Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and former representative Todd Akin (R-MO) have more in common than a breathtaking lack of knowledge of and political tact on the subject of rape. They are also former colleagues on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

According to a 2009 Pew Poll, only 6 percent of scientists identified themselves as Republicans — and it’s easy to see why. Although Gingrey and Akin have moved on, many of the Republican congressmen in charge of setting the nation’s scientific agenda are openly hostile to overwhelmingly accepted scientific theories.

Here are five proudly anti-science members of the House Science Committee:

Lamar Smith (R-TX)



Smith, the current chair of the committee, has publicly criticized scientists and journalists who are “determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming,” and he has backed up his rhetoric with a hardline voting record. During his 25-year tenure in Congress, Smith has voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, opposed tax credits for renewable energy and raising fuel effiency standards, and rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

As ThinkProgress points out, Smith has a powerful incentive to deny the existence of climate change: throughout his career, Smith has received $500,000 from the oil and gas industry.

Paul Broun (R-GA)


The Tea Party-backed Broun, who has served on the Science Committee since 2007, appears to believe that scientists are literally tools of the devil. In an October speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet, Broun declared, “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

“And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior,” he added.

In the same speech, Broun claimed “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)


Sensenbrenner is a well-known climate change truther who has asserted that Earth has been cooling over the past 10 years, that Mars has been warming at a similar rate to Earth, and that global warming will help crop yields go up, making it “easier to feed 7 billion people,” among other flagrant falsehoods.

Sensenbrenner also rejects the fact that genetics influence weight, telling the obese to “Look in the mirror because you are the one to blame.” Along the same hypocritical lines, Sensenbrenner opposed First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” anti-obesity campaign due to her “large posterior.“

Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)


Rohrabacher is arguably Congress’ least-informed member when it comes to climate science, strenuously arguing that climate change and global warming are either a hoax or a massive conspiracy perpetrated by scientists and liberals.

Most notably, Rohrabacher has claimed that “CO2 is irrelevant,” “polar bears are not becoming extinct,” and that “dinosaur flatulence” may have caused past climate changes.

Mo Brooks (R-AL)


Brooks is another climate change truther — having argued that global warming is an “aberration” and “guesswork speculation” — with an interesting twist: His district is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

Perhaps that is why Brooks co-signed what ThinkProgress labeled an “Abandon Earth letter,” which argued that “Space is the ultimate high ground,” and that ” we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research.”

The congressional GOP sharpens its knives to attack scientific research

Midterm Elections, the Senate, and Republican Science Denial

Science Committee chair shrugs off terrifying new climate data

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Theatrics.

As if it matters.

May as well install baboons to the House. End result will be the same.

[alwyn]

wonders why a scientist (oh wait, astrophysicist, not a farmer) would say: “There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows,” before adding “We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs. I don’t have a problem with that, because we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.” You can't take a stand for scientific accuracy when you say shite like this. hybridizing, which is using natural processes to crossbreed plants or animals is NOT the same thing as technically inserting a gene sequence for things that are NOT able to cross in nature. I have a hard time respecting scientists who make misleading statements like this. perhaps the fame has gone to his head, and perhaps he should stick to astrophysics and leave the farming to people who actually do it.

some people fall prey to expert syndrome....being an expert in one field makes you an expert in all of them....just not so.

there is a huge battle in society right now; on one hand, we have the scientists speaking for what is currently known in science, and on the other we have the fundies who hold to their book as the only description of the universe they need. they have one thing in common, the authority with which they speak. science is a left brain way of describing the universe, and religion a right brain way, and fundies of either sort create trouble. when people give me shit about some of the scepticism i have about science, i have to say....thalidomide babies..... scientists swore it was good for ya. scientists also said lupron was good for me...the shit damn near killed me... so yeah, science, other than hard sciences like chemistry, is a way of describing the universe, and observing it's effects. what is it about the observer acting upon the observed? that includes things like the observers opinions informing their observation. it is the rare person who can view the universe in a way that allows him to fully and objectively understand what he sees without subjective coloring...

[Sounder]

My POV is similar to brandons. It seems that some folk here probably never experienced heavy religious indoctrination. People who do get out, generally come to wonder how a group of such beautiful people(note Stefano) could come to agreement, with conclusions that are so bat shit crazy. But they do, so I am a bit gun shy about beliefs.

And Stefano, FYI I love inquiry, whether it's of the spiritual or of the physical. What is not so pleasant are the idols that inhibit our seeing beyond current conventions and limitations.

This turns people to fundamentalism and scientism, where all our conclusions are pre-formed before we step out the door each morning. How convenient.

I'll finish later.


brandon wrote...

I'm just using colorful language because it's fun.

What I mean is that he has become a spokesman or a representative for a poisonous contemporary western mythology. As in all time periods, most of us are so fully steeped in our culture's mythology that we're not even aware that it exists. We simply think that what we currently believe is reality.

We need someone like Tyson as a spokesman for "science" because we need to believe that this institution, hand-in-hand with a deeply ingrained self-centered capitalist philosophy, will march us forward into wonderous new vistas, rather than towards a dead-end nightmare.

It is a misdirected religious impulse that our contemporary mythology tells us modern "intelligent" man does not possess. So we are blind to it, even though we continue to act upon it.

I call it a conspiracy we are all a part of because we've all collectively agreed to lie to ourselves.

We need an illusion that will 'take us to the end' as Parmenides goddess might say.

Thanks alwyn

[Iamwhomiam]

Could there be a better thing? Now we can eat all the french fries we want and never again have to worry about getting cancer that way.

U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/business/genetically-modified-potato-from-simplot-approved-by-usda.html

I kinda like the guy (Tyson) and see him as a positive figure for many. It's not their fault they're unaware of all the implications his messaging possibly represents.

Besides, the Hayden Planetarium is way cool (propaganda or not.it is)

GMO foods are too new to understand all their impacts, though it's true most of us have probably already digested some ourselves. But we do know some about their dangers.

Glyphosate was developed to promote rapid growth in crops but it caused the plants to grow so incredibly quickly they couldn't support their own weight and collapsed, which caused the plant to die. So now that they couldn't sell it to promote crop growth, an herbicide was born.

By genetically modifying the plants to become RoundUp resistant, to block the rapid-growth effect they will become the dominant specie through uncontrollable cross pollination with non-resistant varieties die-off. And their seed is costly and they sue to garner their fees and will clandestinely spray your and kill your crops to demonstrate that their intruders are growing in your fields. And the seed from these plants is sterile, which means you'll have to buy Monsanto seed each and every year, as anything else will not survive their ruthless tactics.

Read this

Glyphosate Testing Full Report: Findings in American Mothers’ Breast Milk, Urine and Water

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results

and this

Roundup and Glyphosate Toxicity Have Been Grossly Underestimated

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/30/glyphosate-toxicity.aspx

I've haven't been indoctrinated since leaving high school and that was pretty ineffective. Although my father indoctrinated the Bishop who had backed his car in my dad's while on our way to my confirmation. He's the fellow I told the joke to that made my mother cringe even more after learning it was the bishop my dad was reaming out. I asked if he knew how Catholics made holy water; he didn't, so I told him, you boil the hell out of it. He broke up and I felt a lot better. Parents!

I also got kicked out of church after a stern public lecture from the minister, Fr. Heines. Kids sat in the front half of our relocated army barracks-turned-church with our Sunday School 6th grade classmates and parents in the back. My parents almost never attended and this was one day I was really glad they didn't. During church I whispered a joke to the guy with a bad cold sitting next to me and he burst out laughing, but to stifle it he covered his mouth and I swear, an 8 inch hawker came shooting out and then as he inhaled, every bit of it disappeared back up he nose, which immediately sent me into a fit of uncontrolled laughter. That was about it. But he did not allow me to be confirmed until after repeating all the classes.

And I've been a bit of a wild man ever since.

But that's not the tent in parking lot, handling snakes sort you might be referring to Sounder. That would be a "No."

[Sounder]

Well that’s great Stefano, now I have a good idea about who is the poison pill on this issue. But I never mentioned those folk, (knowing the game)

Here is a bit from a very pro-glyphosate rag. At least they know their science.

http://boundlessthicket.blogspot.com/20 ... stant.html

Shikimate Pathway

Glyphosate’s mode of action or how it works is that it inhibits or stops the production of an enzyme that is involved in the synthesis of aromatic amino acids. This happens in the Shikimate Pathway. Amino acids serve as building blocks of proteins that are used throughout the entire plant. Of the 20 amino acids only three are inhibited; tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine because they are aromatic and are made through the Shikimate Pathway. In plants Tyrosine is mainly used in Photosynthesis. It is actually in chloroplasts where photosystem II is in the plant cells. Tyrosine acts as an electron donor in the making of NADPH in photosynthesis. It is made in the shikimate pathway. Tryptophan is another amnio acid that is inhibited and it is used as building blocks for proteins. Phenylalanine is the starting compound of flavonoid biosynthesis. It can also be converted through chemical pathways to make cinnamic acid. The flavonoids are the most important plant pigments for flower color, especially yellow or red/blue petals. Tyrosine, Tryptophan, and Phenylalanie are made through a complicated mechanism that starts with chorismate (Wikipedia).

(Below shows EPSP synthase working normally in Marvin Sketch)


Photosynthesis is the process that plants do to create sugars to use for metabolism and growth. Besides making sugars, the other end product is oxygen that is used by mammals to breath. Photosynthesis takes place in the chloroplasts which are organelles that are found only in plant cells or some eukaryotic organisms. In the chloroplast there are chlorophyll cells that absorb the sun’s energy using light’s wavelengths. From this light energy, ATP and NADPH are made which are used in respiration that produces the byproduct oxygen. Photosystem II and Photosystem I happen in the light reaction, where the light energy is absorbed and electrons are transported from Photosystem II to Photosystem I which then makes the NADPH.

Light Reaction in Photosynthesis

Shikimate pathway uses the metabolism of the carbohydrates to make aromatic compounds by biosynthesis. There are seven metabolic steps, phosphoenolpyruvate and erythrose 4 phosphate are converted to chorismate, the precursor of the aromatic amino acids and many aromatic secondary metabolites. All of the pathway’s intermediates are used to make aromatic amino acids and are substrates for other metabolic pathways. The Shikimate pathway is only found in plants and microorganisms, never in humans. Glyphosate disrupts this process between Shikimate and the formation of Chorismate. Glyphosate blocks the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, also known as EPSP synthase. EPSP synthase takes a phosphoric acid from the combining Shikimate and phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) to make EPSE that goes on in the mechanism to work with chorismate synthase which gets rid of another phosphoric acid to make chorismate, the precursor to many amino acids (Herrmann, and Weaver).

But microorganisms are found in our guts. 2+ 2 and all.

[BrandonD]

I kinda like the guy (Tyson) and see him as a positive figure for many.

I like him too, as a person. Regarding his influence however, from one POV he's a positive figure, and from another POV he's a negative figure.

To use a very exaggerated example, consider an imaginary public figure who is a spokesman for the Salem witch trials. This man says that the witches should be imprisoned and rehabilitated, rather than burned alive.

From the POV of someone "inside the system" he is a positive figure - he is a humane and decent example for everyone. But from a larger POV outside of that system, he is a negative figure - because he is still a representative of a monstrous institution that is negative for humanity.

But one can only see this second POV from a position outside of the system.

[Sounder]

SLAD, thanks for the driveby swipe on the anti-science association, real special.

Stefano wrote....

You really actually love your dichotomies, don't you? Decline to jump on the anti-science bandwagon? You are a propagandist enabler!

You would love it if you could paint me on the anti-science side of your fantasy dichotomy.

I'm still waiting for you to say exactly what you have against Tyson - is it just the fact that he doesn't think shikimate pathways are the single most important thing to mention about GMOs?

Not at all, but why do people need to reduce the thoughts of others to monomaniacal traits rather than as one element in a much larger picture?
(Reductionists love the word 'just'.)

Because I looked into that - I was curious because I'd never seen the word shikimate and suspected it was some made-up thing. It's not, but I wasn't far off.

Really, Stefano, how not far off are you? Thanks for your honesty on the 'suspected it was some made-up thing', but it does reveal your stance as being less than objective.

All the pages that warn about glyphosate and its effects on gut bacteria are based on a single bullshit article called Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, published in a journal called Entropy. The article is not, in fact, about any tests that the authors did themselves - it's a literature review done using computers. Neither Samsel nor Seneff is a biologist, the paper is very weak, and Entropy isn't a proper journal - it's a 'pay for play' thing in which anyone can get published if they pay the high publishing fees. It is 'peer reviewed' in the most technical sense, meaning that someone has given it a look-over and made a few suggestions, but that person wouldn't have been a biologist and would have done the absolute bare minimum to comply with the definition of review.

So it's bullshit. What's particularly funny is that an earlier paper by Samsel and Seneff, published in a similarly obscure vanity journal, has come up for discussion here before, and you, Sounder, called it "junk science."

So now let me get this straight, I earlier called it junk science, yet now you use it and claim it as being my ‘source’ on this issue. Do you expect that this will convince anyone of anything?

Somehow, though, you didn't connect the dots on the shikimate thing - you didn't make the effort to look for a source on the claims and ignored me when I asked for details the first time you brought it up in this thread. Is that the opposite of propaganda enabling? I put it to you that it is not.

Now you are just being snippy. I am happy you are able to do your own research.

Here are some reasons why an intelligent man of good faith might hesitate to indiscriminately condemn GM crops as a class, and might instead tell people to rather focus on certain clearly dangerous and anti-social aspects of it:

Can we discriminately condemn them?


That is some well presented propaganda; here is some propaganda from the other side.

And I’m not sure, but I don’t think that IR8 is a GM product.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/IR ... le%22_Rice

The Planning of "Miracle Rice"

The public relations campaign for "Miracle Rice" began long before the rice was even developed. Indeed, the location and physical architecture of IRRI itself were all part of the rice's mystique and glamor. (See the article on the International Rice Research Institute for more information.

Making a Splash

"IRRI's scientists set out to "change the architecture of the rice plant" - to make it shorter, greener, with fewer leaves and more panicles - their mission dictated as much by a need for institutional distinction as much as by the requirements of Asian agriculture."[1] As a number of institutions simultaneously worked to improve rice via breeding, IRRI felt they needed to distinguish themselves, to make a "splash," with the rice varieties they produced. Robert Chandler "elected to avoid incremental improvements in rice varieties and go for "the big jump."[2] This is similar to the efforts of Norman Borlaug and others working with him on wheat breeding, particularly in India, during the same time period.

The Target

Under Chandler's direction, IRRI's team decided upon eight characteristics that would make up their "target" ideal rice plant: "The rice would be short to avoid wasting materials on the stalk; dark green, to absorb sunlight better; and rigid, to allow for machine harvesting. It should grow anywhere in tropical Asia, and have resistance to pests and disease."[3] This approach was controversial:

"Dioscoro Umali, dean of the University of the Philippines College of Agriculture, attended IRRI's Thursday seminars in 1963 and 1964. The target variety, he pointed out, would require expensive inputs: not just fertilizer but also herbicides to prevent shading by taller weeds. Shallow-rooted dwarf plants needed more precise hydraulic control than most peasant farmers could manage. Farmers would have to discard nearly all of their practices and adopt new techniques for planting, weeding, irrigation, harvesting, and threshing. New chemicals and equipment would require credit and distribution networks that the region did not have. If adopted, the target variety would radically disrupt the social environment in which rice was grown. His criticisms hit upon an unstated objective of the Big Jump strategy: to induce social change by displacing the culture and economy of rice cultivation."[4]

Physical Appearance of IR-8 And It's Role in PR

Aside from any of IR-8's capabilities for pest and disease resistance or high yields was its appearance. Short and dark green, it could be seen by the naked eye as something new and different from all other traditional rice varieties. The mere appearance of IR-8 was seen as an important factor by elites around the world who had agendas to change Asian societies via "development" and "modernization." They believed that the appearance of this different-looking rice in fields of their neighbors who would adopt the new seeds and get rich as a result would "induce peasants, voters, and governments to see their situation differently, and to recalculate their interests and allegiances accordingly."[5]
"What made "miracle rice" a success even before the first crops were harvested was its unique capacity to display the arrival of modernity. The new rice partitioned the landscape, drawing a boundary between traditional and modern agriculture clear enough to be seen through the chin bubbles of helicopter gunships. To diplomats, transnational scientists, and Southeast Asian technocrats, grain became a living symbol of abundance, an apparition capable of inducing mass conversions. In the development discourse, "technology transfer" denotes a moment when gifts of science change hands and economies are forever transfigured. IRRI's "modern varieties" plotted this moment spatially, marking the ground with a line separating the bullock cart from the jumbo jet. The dark green rice stopped where consumerism, allegiance, and order left off and subsistence, insurgency, and isolation began: at the edge of the free world."[6]

"Throughout the Cold War, U.S. officials considered their ability to display the fruits of modernity to be a powerful weapon against communism."[7] Without a means such as television to deliver a "showcase of democracy" to Asian peasants, they relied on IR-8 to do the job for them.
Actual vs. Stated Goals of IR-8

Modernizing Peasants With Improved Seeds

To the architects of Asia's "modernization" and "development," the IR-8 rice seeds were key. "IRRI's project proceeded from an assumption that peasants were not yet rational. Their awakening to modernity would begin with the decision to plant IRRI's seeds."[8] This idea is an important one. It implies that by throwing out the economics of peasant farming (which relies on low input systems driving toward autonomy and independence from the market) and instead adopting an entrepreneurial farming system, the peasants would become rational. Farming in a low-risk way to achieve subsistence without trying higher-risk methods that might lead to getting rich but might also lead to financial and environmental ruin of the peasants' major assets (land, genetics, livestock) was seen as irrational.

Implications of IR-8's Need for Inputs

Despite promises of automatic high yields, IR-8 could not produce its promised yields without costly inputs. When USAID distributed IR-8 seeds, it distributed an entire package containing both seeds and agrochemicals. [9] Meanwhile, the agrochemical company Caltex built a national distribution network in the Philippines.

"The foundations took criticism, then and since, for enabling U.S. multinationals to penetrate Third World agriculture, but this analysis actually understates the ambition of IR-8's modernizing project. [Marcos'] technocrats knew reliance on manufactured "inputs" afforded opportunities to impose a solution to the rice crisis by extending [Philippine] government supervision over millions of subsistence farmers living largely outside the cash economy."[10]

Rafael Salas, head of the coordinating council set up by Marcos to control and direct prices and supply of the inputs needed for IR-8, said "Even if it wasn't such a spectacular producer, one would advocate pushing miracle rice culture if only to train the Filipino farmer into thinking in terms of techniques, machines, fertilizers, schedules, and experiments."
[11]

Politics Over Science

IRRI and the 1965 Indian Drought

In 1965, when India and Pakistan experienced droughts while the U.S. reaped bumper crops, the U.S. government, U.S. agribusiness (such as Dwayne Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland, and influential philanthropists such as David Rockefeller met and decided that, as a rescue of India seemed imminent, they ought to use "this momentary leverage" to "force India to increase her agricultural productivity."[12] The message reached IRRI as an urgent need to produce a high-yielding rice variety ready for commercialization in order to avert catastrophic famines as the population of India overtook the land's ability to produce using existing agricultural methods and seeds.

1966: Ferdinand Marcos Needs Rice Now

By 1966, scientists at IRRI had narrowed the field to three promising rice varieties: IR-8, IR-9, and IR-5. IRRI's plant breeders felt each variety should be monitored for several more generations, but newly elected President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who won in 1965 on a campaign promising the people abundant rice, could not wait. Some of Marcos' "technocrats" sat on IRRI's board, where they could push the institute to speed up its process. Thus, in 1966, "before the scientists were ready, Chandler approved and USAID funded" multiplication and field trials of IR-8.[13]

PR Over Reality

Philippine Release of "Miracle Rice"

"As the August harvest came in the Philippines was gripped by a modern tulipomania. IR-8 was sold in the lobbies of banks and fashionable department stores, and harvested grain was too costly to eat. Newspapers promised a tenfold increase in yield. "Miracle Rice -- Instant Increase," proclaimed the Philippine Free Press, assuring readers that spectacular yields were automatic, "lodged in the grain itself - a built in productivity."[14]

[Sounder]

Also, GM's per-say are not the problem.

The problem is a system that inherently reduces personal autonomy via requirements of high inputs, namely agrochemicals.

It is western exceptionalism run amok.

[jlaw172364]

"I don’t know what kind of democracy that is, if you’re gonna cherry-pick ... science because it conflicts with your philosophy"

What does science and facts have to do with democracy? People don't vote on what is true and false. The vast majority of the population believes the vast majority of their beliefs based on faith, not facts in evidence.

[DrEvil]

Slightly off-topic, but:

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

Abstract

Background

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

Objective

We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

Data Sources

Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations

Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0111629

[DrEvil]

Also, GM's per-say are not the problem.

The problem is a system that inherently reduces personal autonomy via requirements of high inputs, namely agrochemicals.

It is western exceptionalism run amok.

Serious question: What does this even mean?

And since you mention chemicals: Do you think it's better to just bathe plants in chemicals or radiation and hope for a useful mutation (aka: The traditional way of modifying plants)?

[yathrib]

It's not about conspiracy, yathrib. It's about state of mind. No offence, but I think I'm not going to be able to explain it to your liking. Cheers.

If you can't explain it then perhaps you shouldn't be so sure about it.

Another way of saying "You're too dumb and/or mundane and/or unspiritual to understand." Thanks for nothing.

[coffin_dodger]

It's not about conspiracy, yathrib. It's about state of mind. No offence, but I think I'm not going to be able to explain it to your liking. Cheers.

If you can't explain it then perhaps you shouldn't be so sure about it.

Another way of saying "You're too dumb and/or mundane and/or unspiritual to understand." Thanks for nothing.

How am I supposed to respond to this? Please, tell me.

I backed away from arguing with you when 'I realised I wasn't going to be able to explain it to your liking'. I didn't say 'I'm not able to explain it to you' in a sneering manner - I made it clear by adding 'to your liking' - meaning that we are poles apart and won't find agreement.

I then went on to explain myself below Stefano's "If you can't explain it then perhaps you shouldn't be so sure about it" statement.

What do you want? Would you like a written apology, here, on this thread?

[yathrib]

It's not about conspiracy, yathrib. It's about state of mind. No offence, but I think I'm not going to be able to explain it to your liking. Cheers.

If you can't explain it then perhaps you shouldn't be so sure about it.

Another way of saying "You're too dumb and/or mundane and/or unspiritual to understand." Thanks for nothing.

How am I supposed to respond to this? Please, tell me.

I backed away from arguing with you when 'I realised I wasn't going to be able to explain it to your liking'. I didn't say 'I'm not able to explain it to you' in a sneering manner - I made it clear by adding 'to your liking' - meaning that we are poles apart and won't find agreement.

I then went on to explain myself below Stefano's "If you can't explain it then perhaps you shouldn't be so sure about it" statement.

What do you want? Would you like a written apology, here, on this thread?

I'm not that sensitive. I'm just tired of the obscurantism.