19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou forgot to mention war, which is often aided and abetted by corporate interests.
In parts of Africa the problem is not necessarily the annual production of food most years, but the frequent drought years, and the inflow of cheap food produced overseas, especially in Europe.
As a matter of interest, are you in favour of GM food?
(Article on evil GM interests: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0807gmwar.htm)
19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think GM will increasingly have its place within the world, yes. I don't think it's a unilateral solution, but I don't think it's a great evil either. People have to get real and stop all the scaremongering.
You forgot to mention war, which is often aided and abetted by corporate interests.
As a matter of interest, are you in favour of GM food?
(Article on evil GM interests: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0807gmwar.htm)
Something we have to remember is that if GM foods are not competitive in terms of returns etc then they won't be used. Science isn't at a point where we can do huge big changes to plants, normally only minor ones anyway. Also, of course, the genes that are used are normally found in plants anyway. The soil bacterium Agrobacterium routinely swaps DNA between organisms, so even lateral gene transfer is hardly novel. Indeed, analyse any conventional crop species DNA and you get genes from heaps of different species.
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYep, like those "mans effect on global warming" scaremongers.
I think GM will increasingly have its place within the world, yes. I don't think it's a unilateral solution, but I don't think it's a great evil either. People have to get real and stop all the scaremongering.
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIn other words, it's not certain whether it's safe or not, but it's certainly profitable, so let's go ahead with it anyway. No?
Well, no. The evidence for global warming is clear. The evidence of any effects of the environment of either GM or non-GM is unequivocal.
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt all depends on the result the boss wants the researcher to achieve doesn't it. At the end of the day. Know what I mean.
I say there should be more tests. But no tests so far have unequivocally shown it to be bad for the environment.
Can't be easy being an objective scientist in today's bottom-line reality. Especially when the real policy makers know and care jack about science.
19 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's why I choose to work in Universities rather than doing commercial research. i don't want someone else telling me what to research. End of the day, the politics is more often more important than the science.
It all depends on the result the boss wants the researcher to achieve doesn't it. At the end of the day. Know what I mean.
Can't be easy being an objective scientist in today's bottom-line reality. Especially when the real policy makers know and care jack about science.
19 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGood for you! And now I am taking a smoke break. Recently I read a scientific article stating that smoking is good for your health...
That's why I choose to work in Universities rather than doing commercial research. i don't want someone else telling me what to research. End of the day, the politics is more often more important than the science.