h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's an analogy. Take nuclear power (and weaponry, for that matter). We were promised masses of clean, cheap, safe energy (and global peace under the shadow of MAD). What a load of toss. The whole thing was a complete fiasco, in terms of practical application, and far far more dangerous that venom spitting spuds as any two headed sheep will testify. The advances in our understanding of physics, though, have been phenomenal; and what has it cost us, really?

Someone has to stand up for the open ended pursuit of knowledge . A pursuit that took us across the savannah and away from extinction.

Indeed, as Oscar Wilde would have said, had he only known, "We are all of us [scientists], but some of us are looking at the stars."

Uh-hu - those of us looking at the stars are astronomers, and don't interfere with the world, we ignore it!

Good plan.

Seems to have worked for me so far, anyhow.

I agree to a certain extent, but one must consider this. We are part of nature and we are just an insignificant extension of it's stupefying complexity. When someone speaks of the process of creating something synthetic they misinterpret as something being unnatural. How much closer to nature can you get? WE ARE IT. Granted, yes, when we do create make something "synthetic" we compensate for either the lack of or reality itself, but it is an expression of who we are. An expression of nature. That is how I see it...Hey, by the way, are eggs meat?

Liquid Movement

"Looks like a fish, Moves like a fish, Steers like a cow."

About 1 million human lives, 80 million plus livestock, the desolation of a vast area of the Ukraine, massive scale birth defects, poisoned rivers, rising radiation levels in the food chain...shall I go on?

I agree that the persuit of nuclear science has been vital in the advance of a number of other fields, has allowed us to power our space probes (the fact that one or two of them shower us with weapons grade plutonium, is something we're all happy to live with), but does that mean we should just let people conduct their experiments in any way they choose?. I don't think so.

"If the scientists behind the biotechs were honest and owned up that they really haven't got a clue what the benefits will be, but that they're sure that they'll be huge"

Huge yes, but only to the biotechs themselves in cornering the world seed market and becoming the first bread monopoly.

Huge for the rest of us. Dream on.

"Grain distribution in the Third World is irrelevent here - it's really to do with what we'll learn about genetics, research that would make Mendel weep, without going anywhere near a human embryo, that is important."

Si, you're not standing in the way of open ended research there? Why not experiment on embryos? Why not experiment on babies? And criminals (Already suggested in the DP forum as I recall). We could build GM people to live in our GM world. We could call them...hmmm...let's think of something pithy...oh, yes...The Master Race.

Bigger, better, stronger cleverer, and the whole lot'll be wiped out by the spanish flu.

I think it was the open ended persuit of four legged herbivores that took us across the savannah, rather than a quest for enlightenment, but your point is well taken.

I think you're being a bit facetious now. *Reads back* OK, maybe I started it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think it's fair to ask, "Do we need GM foods?" if an answer of "No" means an end to such research. We both agree that we probably don't *need* them to solve any real world problems. We do, however, need to study how the modifications to a genome cascade through the embryological and adult development of organisms for exactly the same reasons we need to explore space and any other area of the scientific endeavour - because we can - because we always have. Moreover, I think that genetic research is the most important and promising area of science today and anyone interested in areas like psychology and evolution will, hopefully, one day agree.

The reason I support GM food research is that I see it as a test case - lose the GM food fight ( ) and we set back genetic research by decades. That would be criminal.

No, science should not be allowed to conduct it's experiments in any way it chooses, this has to be done responsibly. I do not, however, think that public opinion should be allowed to decide *what* experiments are conducted.

- I do not, however, think that public opinion should be allowed to decide *what* experiments are
- conducted.

Mmmm..., what do I mean by that then?

There are obviously some taboos, but science is far less the servant of today's populace than it is of tomorrow's so there is a line to be drawn.

You see that's the real question. What do we mean by popular consent, and how far should we let the general public decide how science is advanced. When I'm not fighting the environmental-anarcho-urban warrior corner I am in fact a complete fascist when it comes to allowing the public to have a say in any matters. To be blunt , which I usually am, do you want 50 million half-wits deciding having a referendum on scientific endeavours that they would not be able to spell, let alone understand.

Sorry, was I being an elitist patronising bastard? It just slips out sometimes. Tsk, and I try so hard.

But no, really, there needs to be public consultation, but I feel it's true, that if we'd had society by consensus back on the savannah, the world would be run by the baboons now, and we'd have gone the way of the neanderthals, the only true hippies of the ape kingdom!

Anyway, I think I've said enough to come back to a torrent of abuse in the morning. Ah, the things I do for conversation!

*I think you're being a bit facetious now. *Reads back* OK, maybe I started it.*

Well, you've got to really. Anyway, I think we're taking over this conversation far too much (again)!!

*Moreover, I think that genetic research is the most important and promising area of science today and anyone interested in areas like psychology and evolution will, hopefully, one day agree.*

I couldn't agree more. This research has to be going on, since from genetic research we may crack cancer, HIV, who knows what else, and it might give us key technologies needed in the colonisation of other planets, which I'm sure we'll need at the rate we're using this one up!! We've just got to keep an eye on the little buggers!!

Just to recap

GM foods themselves may not be essential for the increase of farm production, but they are vital in the advancement of science.

I actually think that this is a really good point, there is so much that we don't know that almost any research can lead into new areas. This leads me into the second point:-

The scientists must ultimately have to answer to the public, however the public must have no direct influence over the research being conducted.

OK, this sounds like a total contradiction, but it isn't. I think that the public have a right to know what has been discovered, without having to know the methods through which the discovery was made. Some methods may be disagreeable with certain sections of the population. This can cause problems if those sections are the ones which have a nasty habit of over reacting at the slightest provocation. Especially if they have a tendency to invade research establishments and destroy valuable equipment.

Believe it or not most scientists are educated people with an appropriate quantity of moral fibre. They usually have a fairly good idea of what is acceptable and what isn't.

"Believe it or not most scientists are educated people with an appropriate quantity of moral fibre. They usually have a fairly good idea of what is acceptable and what isn't."

Mmmm, you see, there are those delightful qualifiers most and usually (and I think even that may be optimistic).

So to turn it around and take the flip side of the coin:

Some scientists are still educated people but are completely lacking in moral fibre. Sometimes they are prepared to overstep the bounds of what is acceptable in what is now a cutthroat reasearch grant oriented, results driven research environment.

Scientists are just like everyone else. Some are nice, some are not nice. It's just that a not nice scientist can be the creator of an awful lot more nastiness than a not nice postal worker. (OK, maybe postal worker wasn't such a good example )

Also, behind every nice scientist there is a not nice defence company ready to see if their fluffy discovery has any "security" applications.

I agree with Menzarse taht most scientists are genuinely nice people who have every belief they are working for the betterment of mankind. From my own experience of living and working in a university research environment, I also know that most scientist have very little grip on the "real world", and often do not think of how their research can or will be applied, becaus to them the application is not as important as the quest itself.

Then it is left to industrialists and defense types to do the applying.

You see, I think science should be advanced as far and as rapidly as possible, it's just whenever anybody else gets in on the act that the problems start.

I've probably contradicted myself 10 times here, so I'll shut up now!

"Indeed there could be concern over whether plants could cross pollinate and so cause problems, unlikely if the crops in neighbouring fields are of a different species and hence would probably not flower at the same time."

I dont know about where you live, but here in Australia & in the US you can drive for hundreds of miles & see nothing but wheat or some other single crop from horizon to horizon.

Your 100 acre paddock of wheat is right next to your neighbours 100 acre paddock of wheat - & they tend to flower at the same time.


;^)#

Yes I did realise that GM food had the potential to effect things globally.
and "things" globally have the potential to effect GM food.

It is hard to imagine any way to work out that number of unknowns
given our present number of dimensions. We can only create a simpified model by means of our worryingly small knowledge of what may be relevant.

Is there any particular reason to undertake the required leap of faith?

There are alternative ways of delivering all the supposed benifits
that I have heard of so far. Given that I am not knowingly a
shareholder in any relevant company, I do not class the profit motive
as a benifit.

The science within this contreversy can proceed without massive scall application.

Yes the moral implications centered around peoples feelings about themselves and their communities beliefs are significant.

The British army in India discovered that differences in perception can make massive alterations in application.
The rumour that animal fat was used to grease gunpowder cartriges which required to be bitten open was enough to stop their use by those who did not want to eat that meat.

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible."

Phil Angell
Director of Corporate Communications
Monsanto

Prof Gosden, who is leaving Leeds next month to take up a post at a Canadian university, ...

He said one of the reasons for his departure was the public and political backlash against biotechnology and genetic science.

Prof Gosden told the Daily Telegraph: "With all the fuss over GM food and so on, it is difficult to be a scientist in Britain."

"We are part of nature and we are just an insignificant extension of it's
stupefying complexity. When someone speaks of the process of
creating something synthetic they misinterpret as something
being unnatural. How much closer to nature can you get? WE
ARE IT."

Aha! Someone who understands!