Nobel Award Winners ask Greenpeace to stand on scientific consensus, instead of against it
A letter signed by over 100 scholars attempts to get Greenpeace to re-think opposition to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci
So, in the past, what has Greenpeace thought about the opinions of Nobel laureates? Hmm....
(A Greenpeace tweet):
So Greenpeace in the past celebrated Peter Doherty, Brian Schmidt, Ada Yonath and asked us to hear them....Hmm. Ok, so the Nobelists didn't ruin treasured historical sites, and they didn't climb Greenpeace's headquarters. But they seem to have been heard (by the world, if not by Greenpeace). I wanted to keep a running list of the pieces about this story.
...
This Reuters piece at CBC is one of my favorites. From the piece: "Greenpeace officials called the event a publicity stunt." Yeah, Greenpeace is so opposed to publicity stunts. My ass. I was noticing that none of the coverage had the bogus syringe-tomato images, but many of them used photos of past Greenpeace publicity stunts--because there are so many to choose from.
..."
---------------------------------------------
Greenpeace jumped the shark years ago. Will those who remain work to right this ship, finally?
comradebillyboy
(10,191 posts)Sadly the far left has its own fair share of science denial.
Scruffy1
(3,257 posts)I hear nonsense from them every day. Most of the younger generation has little scientific knowledge. My personal objection to gmo's is that the grower's are pretty much locked in to the corporations that make them and the field is not very competitive.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)GMO activists not to blame for scientific challenges slowing introduction, study finds
By Gerry Everding June 2, 2016
Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates, suggests a new study from Washington University in St. Louis.
Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem, said lead author Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies in Arts & Sciences. (Emphasis added - k)
Golden Rice on Time cover
Proclaimed as a potential life saver 16 years ago on the cover of Time, Golden Rice may still be years away from approval.
...GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.
In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rices unfulfilled promises.
Washington University anthropologist Glenn Stone, shown here with an agricultural field agent, has studied rice cultivation and research in the Philippines since 2013. (Photo: Glenn Stone)
The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done, Stone said. It has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI).
....
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's time to wake up. Greenpeace's lies need to be called out by everyone.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Pro-GMO campaign exploits Nobel laureates to attack Greenpeace and fool the people
June 30, 2016
[center]Greenpeace is being criticized for blocking GMO golden rice even though the crop is years away from being ready, reports Claire Robinson[/center]
...The letter calls upon Greenpeace to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general, and upon governments to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.
The letter ends with an impassioned rhetorical question: How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a crime against humanity?
The problem with this picture is that the emotion and dogma in this case do not belong to Greenpeace but to those who claim or imply that GM golden rice is ready to deploy and that only anti-GMO activists are holding it back.
Thats because in reality, as Prof Glenn Davis Stone pointed out in a peer-reviewed study co-authored with development expert Dominic Glover, GM golden rice still isnt ready and theres no evidence that activists are to blame for the delay.
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1
<>
As Greenpeace stated in its response to the campaign:
Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered golden rice are false. Golden rice has failed as a solution and isnt currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesnt even exist.
Authority over expertise
The laureates letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out. Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: 1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors. He added that science is about evidence not authority. What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be show me, not trust me Nobel prize or not.
Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaigns website in which he called the laureates letter shameful. He noted that the signatories were mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.
The lack of expertise among the letter signatories contrasts markedly with that of the man whose work the new propaganda campaign seems to be attempting to discredit. Glenn Davis Stone who has never opposed GM golden rice is an expert on crop use and technology change among poor farmers, including rice farmers in the Philippines, the country targeted for the golden rice rollout if it ever happens. He has been following the evidence on the progress of golden rice for years and has published extensively on the topic.
In other words, unlike the laureates, he knows what hes talking about.
Who is behind the letter?
The new propaganda campaign is said to have been organized by Sir Richard J. Roberts. Roberts is a Nobel Laureate in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns, and chief scientific officer for New England Biolabs. According to their website, New England Biolabs are a collective of scientists committed to developing innovative products for the life sciences industry a recognized world leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of recombinant and native enzymes for genomic research.
<>
Update 1 July 2016: A GMWatch reader has pointed out to us that the second organizer of the laureates letter alongside Richard J. Roberts is Phillip A. Sharp, who works at the David H. Koch Institute at MIT.
An article for the website Science Alert about the 107 laureates publicity stunt describes Sharp only as the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology.
What the article fails to mention is that Sharp is a biotech entrepreneur with interests in GMO research. In 1978 he co-founded the biotechnology and pharmaceutical company Biogen and in 2002 he co-founded Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which uses RNAi gene silencing genetic engineering technologies to manufacture therapeutics.
To be clear, GMWatch does not oppose the use of genetic technologies in contained use situations, such as medicine, as long as there is informed consent by the patient to the therapy and no risk to non-target populations and the environment. However, Sharps interests in biotech companies should be disclosed in any GMO advocacy exercises he engages in, just as they would be if he were to publish a paper on GMO technologies in any reputable scientific journal.
<>
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Go through all the links in the link at the OP, and get the full story, not the organic industry BS one.
Here's more: https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/01/the-nobel-savage-greenpeaces-colonialist-ambitions/
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Philip Stark @philipbstark
3:56 AM - 30 Jun 2016
1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors. Perhaps
Philip Stark ?@philipbstark Jun 30And 1 prize for Literature.Bioscience Resource ?@BioSRP Jul 1+ one who is dead: see http://bit.ly/298ntcb for the real orchestratorscornelsinduna ?@cornelsinduna Jun 30Even Nobel prizewinners make mistakes, Not one Plant Geneticist in their midst.
Philip Stark ?@philipbstark
4h4 hours ago
Time-honored technique to establish scientific fact: shout the opposition down, ostracize, bully. Evidence optional.
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/749602898355585024
NassimNicholasTaleb Verified account
?@nntaleb
Same Monsanto's PR firm as the 107 Nobels send>1500 emails to NYU pathologizing my GMO stance
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You owe us all a bit apology. You know that your links are nothing but corporate industry trying to cover its arse.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Science is a foreign concept to them.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:59 AM - Edit history (3)
I'm with THEM, basically, among many others I could name:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/17/peds.2015-4230
Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3
Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative
Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish
Abbreviations: MV measles vaccine, NME nonmedical exemption, VPD vaccine-preventable disease
Efforts to restrict parents ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.
Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDgaTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public HealthSeattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
OFF-TOPIC, incidentally.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Yeah. You post TONS of anti-vax quackery on here. To those of us with children on the spectrum (or on the spectrum ourselves), you are being quite disgusting.
Vaccines should be mandatory unless there is a medical reason not to vaccinate. People who chose not to vaccinate their children are dangerous, uneducated idiots. Anyone promoting them is just as idiotic and dangerous.
Vaccines do NOT cause autism, not matter how much you want that to be true, it's not.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)ASIDE: Incidentally, my training as a dentist occurred in an era when autism was considered 1:10,000 and during my post-doc training as a pediatric dentist when I was awarded the Fellowship for Special Needs Dentistry for Children, the focus then was on treatment of children with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Hep B/HIV, special medical conditions (cancer, hereditary syndromes, other). Was autism even mentioned in my 2-year pediatric dentistry program? NO, it was not. Am I "being quite disgusting" to contribute on this topic with my background? NO, IMO, NOT AT ALL.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You will, of course, pretend otherwise, but that doesn't change the reality.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Just as I wouldn't talk to a psychologist about getting a filling put in.
You are unqualified to be any sort of authority on this subject, and you do nothing but promote debunked sources and other quakery, especially age of autism.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You often post from Age of Autism, which is an anti-vax quack site. You also tend to post debunked papers and information in regards to vaccines or autism, then claim you are not anti-vax.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Don't deny it.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:381400
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 21, 2010
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org
This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/10/1021-0381$20.00
Glenn Davis Stone
Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130;
Abstract
By late in the twentieth century, scientists had succeeded in manipulating organisms at the genetic level, mainly by gene transfer. The major impact of this technology has been seen in the spread of geneti- cally modified (GM) crops, which has occurred with little controversy in some areas and with fierce controversy elsewhere. GM crops raise a very wide range of questions, and I address three areas of particular interest for anthropology and its allied fields. First are the political- economic aspects of GM, which include patenting of life forms and new relationships among agriculture, industry, and the academy. Sec- ond is the wide diversity in response and resistance to the technology. Third is the much-debated question of GM crops for the developing world. This analysis is approached first by determining what controls research agendas and then by evaluating actual impacts of crops to date.
http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone-annualreview-2010.pdf
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Think, for once.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It's long been obvious you have no grasp of what is involved in the area of ethics and science. This latest comment is absolute confirmation.
Think, for once.
See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=162621
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's an opinion piece. The fact that you don't even understand that shows all anyone needs to know about the ludicrous defenses you have put up about this matter.
Greenpeace has acted in an inhuman, anti-science manner, over and over again, and you think that's just fine.
We get it. Now, stop pretending that you have anything to offer but cherry picked opinions. You can't even find actual, cherry picked research.
LOL!!!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)really just shills for Monsanto.
The shill gambit, it's ALL they've got.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Response to HuckleB (Original post)
Judi Lynn This message was self-deleted by its author.
lostnfound
(16,203 posts)The basic concept of GM crops, fine
Using them as a way to monopolize agriculture throughout the world, inject "suicide" genes to prevent seed-saving, encourage increased use of your company's herbicides ("round-up ready corn" , harassing small farmers who have no defense against seeds blown off trucks on highway into paying royalty fees? Not fine.
Science drops a lovely idea into the river of life, and greedhead Machiavellians turn it into Frankenstein.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Please stop promoting fictions.
Orrex
(63,291 posts)They're evil, is what I'm saying.