Obama's agriculture department silencing scientists

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 4, 2015.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    OK, for all you Obama conspiracy theorists, here is an article in Government Executive that should be red meat for you. A government agency caught in the act of suppressing unwelcome science:

    http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/11/obamas-agriculture-department-silencing-scientists/123374/

    Not that the President micromanages Agriculture, but still, he is the guy at the top. Kind of annoying when scientific research gets suppressed.
     
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
    You end up with some potential scary outcomes/scenarios when politics and science mix.
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    Yep, we saw the same kinds of things with the Bush Administration on climate change science. And I'm sure there were similar issues with previous administrations that didn't become as well known since the internet wasn't in wide use at the time.
     
  4. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    Hell. Monsanto is so incestuously entwined with our government, it's difficult to play partisan politics when both parties are so willing to bend over backwards to kiss their ass every chance they get.

    The old saying that the US has the best government money can buy is something of a truism.
     
  5. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    A casual perusal of Monsanto demonstrates that fabrics are a thing of the past. It’s now all about food supply manipulation. The thing is, you ingest what they sell by third party, but you have not been given a laundry list of side-effects like you see in drug ads on TV.

    Products:
    Agricultural and vegetable seeds
    Plant biotechnology traits
    Crop protection chemicals
     
  6. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    I like genetically modified watermelons because I don't have to spit seeds out.
     
  7. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    I would never be on the side for silencing scientists. However. After reading the first part of the OP's article, it's impossible to say whether this qualifies as that or not. This could be a workplace issue, unconnected to silencing him for his science, but interpreted in that way by the scientist.
    So if he can substantiate his claim, then good for him. However, we should be careful to leap and accept his account as the truth, when it very well may not be the full and accurate story.
     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    This is all bog standard GMO fear, which I think 96% of is complete and total BS.

    Yeah, genetically modified crops should be tested to make sure they're safe for consumption. But if analysis doesn't find any chemicals or compounds in a modified zucchini you wouldn't find in a regular zucchini beyond a few stray RNA differences, why worry?
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    Because then we can't use clever phrases like "Frankenfoods" and rage against "Big Agri."
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #11
    I think there are many reasons not to like "Big Agri", but GMOs aren't one of them. More the fact that companies like Monsanto are lawsuit-happy asses who go after smaller farmers, and can do anything they want with practical impunity because they have the government as a whole backing them up in just about everything they do.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    GMOs have been tested and are safe for consumption. That is just about as well established as human influence on climate change. The main risk is that it allows the use of more dangerous fertilizers that may have negative effects on the environment, and that should be studied more.
     
  12. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #13
    So you prefer to spit instead of swallow? Shame! :) :)
     
  13. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    Only in the case of watermelons, but I definitely set myself up for that one. :D
     
  14. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #15
    You get young boys reaching puberty and sprouting boobs just from injected hormones, but government's okay with that. We've yet to see the diabolical results from genetically engineered foods.

    Does this sound tasty? "Genetically engineered foods have had foreign genes (genes from other plants or animals) inserted into their genetic codes. Genetic engineering can be done with plants, animals, or bacteria and other microorganisms."
     
  15. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #16
    Btw, seedless fruits are the result of a naturally occurring genetic anomaly rather than through genetic modification. When the anomaly occurs, the original plant is cloned through cutting, the clones are then cultivated and the process is repeated indefinitely. So that seedless watermelon that you're eating is probably from a plant over a hundred years old.
     
  16. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    Thanks for the info!
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    I think there are a lot of reasons why GMOs could harm the environment, and also, reasons why people might not want to eat food with a lot of GMO food product in them, other than "GMOs are toxic" or "GMOs cause cancer". It is a little like the strawman arguments dragged out in favor of nuclear power-- "It will blow up like a bomb", "The radiation outside the plant will sterilize you", etc. No doubt a few people believe both sets of arguments. So what?

    Real reasons people might not like GMOs: one of the reasons for the success of GMO corn is that you can dump herbicide on it and not kill the corn. But, the massive use of herbicides basically creates a monoculture zone that is essentially withdrawn from nature. A desert has far more biodiversity than a GMO cornfield. And most people also don't need to eat any more white corn products whose purpose is to make people fat and give them metabolic syndrome. I don't have to believe that tortilla chips will give me cancer in order to want to avoid them. I don't have to believe that HFCS has GMO-caused toxins to realize that soda is the fastest available weight-gain supplement.

    And, I haven't said anything about the loss of pollinators due to pesticides.

    People may be concerned about general biodiversity, genetic diversity of plants like corn, monopolistic agribusiness behavior, agricultural employment, bees, and their own weight and metabolic health. It would be unfortunate if scientific research is suppressed because it conflicts with the desires of agribusiness.
     
  18. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #19
    You are correct on all counts-- for all we know, the guy is recovering from getting kicked in the head by a horse. We need to know more to know whether there are other issues. We have no way of knowing whether or not these are quality papers that were submitted.

    Of course, since we actually have seen direct attempts to suppress climate science in the past, we might be a little suspicious though.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Now you and mrkramer can make an argument I can actually see the point of. Most people I see take a stand against GMOs tend use the lower brow justifications, which have all but been disproven by this point. They're the "Vaccines Cause Autism" line of arguments for the agricultural industry.

    Arguing against the long term ecological damage that can come about due to the strict control, and various chemicals used in growing them is far more worthy of a discussion than "...but what if our food isn't, like, really food at all?"
     
  20. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #21
    Many up on the hill are invested in Mosanto, no surprise the prez is protecting them. I also read somewhere a while back how Mosanto lays claims over private farmers lands if genetic seeds migrate to them - the courts sided with Mosanto.
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #22
    Lots of health issues stem with a wide array of foods that have been F'd with for profit.
     
  22. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    I support healthy doses of suspicion ... and skepticism.
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #24
    What's devious in America are attempts at preventing labeling of foods tainted with genetic manipulation. If it's so great, that would be a primary benefit to proudly convey. But they want it concealed.
     
  24. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #25
    So you'd agree that Democrats and Republicans are anti-science?
     

Share This Page