Republican party says, "Screw science!"

[OMGturt1es]

You are conveniently leaving out leftist anti-science woo like anti-nuclear-power and anti-GMO scare tactic BS, which does affect national policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

 

[TimCallahan]

You are conveniently leaving out leftist anti-science woo like anti-nuclear-power and anti-GMO scare tactic BS, which does affect national policy.

As to nuclear power, the nuclear power plants along the coast of California were supposed to be well enough built to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude likely to hit such coastal areas. The Japanese reactors damaged in the 2010 earthquake / tsunami have demonstrated that isn't so. At the present time AFAIK we are still enjoying a surplus of uranium to fuel our nuclear reactors, from highly enriched uranium the Russians sold us when the Soviet Union collapsed. Once it's used up, we will again be a uranium importing country, hence vulnerable to outside pressures and price hikes.

As to genetically modified foods, if people oppose them simply because they are genetically modified, that's woo, since all domestic plants and animals were genetically modified by selective breeding. A classic case of this is the banana.

There might be other reasons to be less than sanguine about GMOs. For example, suppose, by genetic modification, proteins usually found in legumes are introduced into plants from other families. This would be great if it allowed these plants to form the same symbiotic relationship legumes have with soil bacteria that affix atmospheric nitrogen. That would great in that it would reduce the need for fertilizers, in turn reducing the fiscal and energy costs of crops, as well as reducing polluting agricultural run-off of nitrates.
The downside of this would be for those allergic to legumes. Many people allergic to peanuts are also allergic to other legumes. The fight, as I recall, over this issue involves demands that GMOs be labeled as such. The labeling should also include warnings for those allergic to legumes, etc.

Another problem with GMOs has to do with copyrights. In certain cases there have been allegations that agribiz corporations have litigated against farmers wanting to save and plant seeds from their own crops grown on their own land, since these crops are the property of the genetic modifiers. I won't venture an opinion on the merit of these arguments. However, I would say that opposition to nuclear power or to GMOs isn't, per se, woo.

 

[daredelvis]

As to nuclear power, the nuclear power plants along the coast of California were supposed to be well enough built to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude likely to hit such coastal areas. The Japanese reactors damaged in the 2010 earthquake / tsunami have demonstrated that isn't so. At the present time AFAIK we are still enjoying a surplus of uranium to fuel our nuclear reactors, from highly enriched uranium the Russians sold us when the Soviet Union collapsed. Once it's used up, we will again be a uranium importing country, hence vulnerable to outside pressures and price hikes.

As to genetically modified foods, if people oppose them simply because they are genetically modified, that's woo, since all domestic plants and animals were genetically modified by selective breeding. A classic case of this is the banana.

There might be other reasons to be less than sanguine about GMOs. For example, suppose, by genetic modification, proteins usually found in legumes are introduced into plants from other families. This would be great if it allowed these plants to form the same symbiotic relationship legumes have with soil bacteria that affix atmospheric nitrogen. That would great in that it would reduce the need for fertilizers, in turn reducing the fiscal and energy costs of crops, as well as reducing polluting agricultural run-off of nitrates.
The downside of this would be for those allergic to legumes. Many people allergic to peanuts are also allergic to other legumes. The fight, as I recall, over this issue involves demands that GMOs be labeled as such. The labeling should also include warnings for those allergic to legumes, etc.

Another problem with GMOs has to do with copyrights. In certain cases there have been allegations that agribiz corporations have litigated against farmers wanting to save and plant seeds from their own crops grown on their own land, since these crops are the property of the genetic modifiers. I won't venture an opinion on the merit of these arguments. However, I would say that opposition to nuclear power or to GMOs isn't, per se, woo.

Nuclear power no, but GMO yes. If they want to save seeds, then don't buy seeds sold under a no seed saving agreement. Almost all of the anti-GMO arguments (and a subset of the anti-nuclear) are woo, your GMO examples included.

Daredelvis

 

[elbe]

Nuclear power no, but GMO yes. If they want to save seeds, then don't buy seeds sold under a no seed saving agreement. Almost all of the anti-GMO arguments (and a subset of the anti-nuclear) are woo, your GMO examples included.

Daredelvis

Just curious, but have there been any significant anti-GMO bills introduced? The last one I remember hearing about, and I admit that it's not a topic I pay much attention to, was a bi-partisan bill from both of Alaska's senators.

 

[Mitchell314]

Nuclear power no, but GMO yes. If they want to save seeds, then don't buy seeds sold under a no seed saving agreement. Almost all of the anti-GMO arguments (and a subset of the anti-nuclear) are woo, your GMO examples included.

Daredelvis

Do you know of a high-productivity seed supplier that doesn't have such an agreement?

 

[PhantomWolf]

As to nuclear power, the nuclear power plants along the coast of California were supposed to be well enough built to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude likely to hit such coastal areas. The Japanese reactors damaged in the 2010 earthquake / tsunami have demonstrated that isn't so.

The Reactors, which were built in 1967, survived the Earthquake quite happily, it was the high that expected Tsunami that destroyed the diesel generators that were running the cooling system after the power loss that caused the meltdown. So you had a 33 year old reactor hit by one of the worse natural disasters in recorded history, and the only reason that it failed was that the engineers hadn't factored in that they could be hit by a tsunami several times the size of the largest previously recorded there.

At the present time AFAIK we are still enjoying a surplus of uranium to fuel our nuclear reactors, from highly enriched uranium the Russians sold us when the Soviet Union collapsed. Once it's used up, we will again be a uranium importing country, hence vulnerable to outside pressures and price hikes.

Not an issue with many of the newer breeder reactors, in fact there is enough nuclear "waste" in the US to keep breeder reactors running for centuries if not longer.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I understand that. My point is that a significant number of Republican lawmakers are antagonistic toward science. While I initially focused on what their stupid shutdown is doing, my point is that their antagonism toward science - whether in the form of climate change denial, general anti-environmentalism, creationism or merely showing cavalier contempt for ongoing biomedical research - is long term and entrenched.

Sorry... completely my mistake.

I misread your post as you making the claim vs. you quoting a statement from last year saying it occurred the previous month. I'll be in the corner.

edit... it was the "pit of hell" bit that caught my eye. Can't forget that little gem. And the guy is still a pillock.

 

[daredelvis]

Do you know of a high-productivity seed supplier that doesn't have such an agreement?

I know nothing abut seed suppliers. Can you define high-productivity? Is this a trait that is a result of genetically modifying seeds? If so, don't the makers have a right to license and protect their intellectual property?

I'm not one to always say the free market is the answer, but if it makes economic sense for a farmer to save seeds (open source seeds, so to speak), wouldn't it make sense for a farmer to save 2x seeds to sell to other farmers? If it makes sense to buy GMO seeds, it should make sense to follow the license agreement, or don't do it.

I will be the last to defend Monsanto, but knowing what it takes to genetically modify an organism, and knowing how easy it is to propagate an organism once someone else has put the work in "making it", there has to be some way to protect the investment in making the genetically modified organism in the first place. We academic scientists, can't do everything for you, not with the current crop that is running the country.

Daredelvis

 

[TimCallahan]

Nuclear power no, but GMO yes. If they want to save seeds, then don't buy seeds sold under a no seed saving agreement. Almost all of the anti-GMO arguments (and a subset of the anti-nuclear) are woo, your GMO examples included.
Daredelvis

As I recall, companies using GMO products did fight against labeling that ingredients were genetically modified. While I might find someone's insistence on having no GMO foods in their diet as a bit silly, I respect their right to such an indulgence. Certainly, there should be no problem identifying your ingredients as GMO.

I also don't see people wanting to know if their food has material in it derived from an organism to which they may be allergic to be in any way woo.

Some education would help greatly. I recall on one of the jref forums, it might have been this one, a poster who argued vehemently that smallpox vaccinations caused smallpox, an impossibility, because the immunization uses a weakened cowpox virus. The scientific name for the cowpox organism is Vaccinia from the Latin vernacular word for "cow", vacca. Hence, the process of protecting against smallpox by introducing Vaccinia into the skin via a scarifying needle was called "vaccination," a word that was eventually applied to all such inoculations.

Finally, I still say the Republican / conservative anti-science woo well out weighs that from the left.

 

[TimCallahan]

The Reactors, which were built in 1967, survived the Earthquake quite happily, it was the high that expected Tsunami that destroyed the diesel generators that were running the cooling system after the power loss that caused the meltdown. So you had a 33 year old reactor hit by one of the worse natural disasters in recorded history, and the only reason that it failed was that the engineers hadn't factored in that they could be hit by a tsunami several times the size of the largest previously recorded there.



Not an issue with many of the newer breeder reactors, in fact there is enough nuclear "waste" in the US to keep breeder reactors running for centuries if not longer.

Newer breeder reactors? I wasn't aware we had any on line. While I don't want to get into too technological an argument, for fear of the thread being moved, the problem posed by breeder reactors is that mixed oxide fuel is far more susceptible to diversion than is U235 / U238 fuel.

 

[Ladewig]

As to the title of the the thread being misleading,while I initially focused on the shutdown's effect on ongoing research, the Republican war on science - actually an extreme conservative war - is sustained and ongoing. It includes cynical support of anti-environmentalism, as exemplified by Dixie Lee Ray's claims that the majority of animals on the Endangered Species List are invertebrates (in her words, "snails and bugs and worms"); climate change denial, which seems to become more strident the more the evidence supports anthropogenic global climate change; support of creationism and attempts to get it taught in public schools; and general, across the board antagonism toward science (all the while these twits enjoy the fruits of technology).

Oh, I agree that there are very few ways to more accurately describe the Republican Party's stance than as a "war on science." My point is that this action is not really anti-science, per se.

No, they didn't do it deliberately to destroy the research, but they could have allowed special funding to maintain ongoing projects, so that tax money already spent wouldn't be wasted. However, they really don't give a damn. Thus, they show contempt for the American taxpayers, as well as for scientific research and for the entire national administrative infrastructure.

Ahhh, but there is the rub. Once someone in the party says "hey, it would be a terrific waste of money if we cut funding in the middle of an ongoing complicated project," then the next guy would say "well, my state has some stuff that we shouldn't cut funding for," and pretty soon it would snowball until it became obvious to even the most narrow-minded people that the only programs that would be left unfunded are those benefiting Romney's 47-percenters.

The whole thing was surprisingly short-sighted. Every time the National Park Service has funding issues it shuts down the National Mall. Any Republican with even the simplest understanding of past funding fights would know that the WW II memorial would be closed immediately, but all the media-whore party members marched down there to complain in person and act surprised that cutting funding meant cutting funding. Herpaderp politics at its finest.

 

[daredelvis]

As I recall, companies using GMO products did fight against labeling that ingredients were genetically modified. While I might find someone's insistence on having no GMO foods in their diet as a bit silly, I respect their right to such an indulgence. Certainly, there should be no problem identifying your ingredients as GMO.

Since there is no evidence of harm from GMO food (and it has been extensively tested), the burden should be on those that want to claim "GMO free!". There is nothing keeping companies from doing that. Labeling is just a scare tactic to spread misinformation.

I also don't see people wanting to know if their food has material in it derived from an organism to which they may be allergic to be in any way woo.

GMO crops are regulated by the FDA, and your above example would require testing, and probably labeling (something like "this product contains [allergen X]"
See here:

FDA is responsible for regulating the safety of GM crops that are eaten by humans or animals. According to a policy established in 1992, FDA considers most GM crops as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops. In such cases, GM crops are designated as “Generally Recognized as Safe” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and do not require pre-market approval. If, however, the insertion of a transgene into a food crop results in the expression of foreign proteins that differ significantly in structure, function, or quality from natural plant proteins and are potentially harmful to human health, FDA reserves the authority to apply more stringent provisions of FFDCA requiring the mandatory pre-market approval of food additives, whether or not they are the products of biotechnology.9

These arguments keep getting recycled, and they are woo based.

Finally, I still say the Republican / conservative anti-science woo well out weighs that from the left.

Total, 100000% agreement. Not just in the scope of the anti-science woo, but in the influence within the party. Anti-science on the left is pretty much marginalized, while anti-science is the platform of the GOP.

Daredelvis

 

[Mitchell314]

I know nothing abut seed suppliers. Can you define high-productivity? Is this a trait that is a result of genetically modifying seeds? If so, don't the makers have a right to license and protect their intellectual property?

I was replying to this:

If they want to save seeds, then don't buy seeds sold under a no seed saving agreement.

Not really feasible if you can't find competitive* seeds that don't have such a clause. New seed contracts can be a PITA to get with all the hoop jumping.



* Competitive as in competitively priced and expected margins from produce is comparable to the norm in the agricultural industry. The point being to ignore technicalities with uncommon seed lines, or whatever some fringe farmers use.

 

[TimCallahan]

You are conveniently leaving out leftist anti-science woo like anti-nuclear-power and anti-GMO scare tactic BS, which does affect national policy.

It occurred to me that I haven't really asked you two pertinent questions:

Specifically how has the anti-nuclear movement impacted national policy?

To what degree have those opposed to GMO foods impacted national policy?

 

[fuelair]

FTFY: Republican party says, "Screw science, screw the US public, screw the world economy, screw the idiots who voted for us, screw the dumb business people who supported us, screw 'em all !"

 

[Mitchell314]

It occurred to me that I haven't really asked you two pertinent questions:

Specifically how has the anti-nuclear movement impacted national policy?

To what degree have those opposed to GMO foods impacted national policy?

That's something that has bothered me for a while. I've heard a ton from folks complaining about anti-nuclear folks, but except for a few online, I have yet to run into them IRL more than once. And those I do run into are better categorized by age (older) as opposed to politics. I personally figured it's more due to the mentality that grew in response to the cold war era.