Serious Question

there are experts on both sides of this divide though. how does one choose which expert to defer to?
I'm afraid I just don't consider Islandman an expert, any more than I consider myself one because of my own genetics class. I agree that something *feels* different about lab-based genomic manipulation. Geneticist-in-question's position is that it's no different from any other genetic adaptation. Just because it happens faster or at the hands of a lab-coated dork, doesn't make the fundamental process uniquely dangerous.

I am fortunate because of the nature of our kids' school to have lots of friends in the front lines of the sciences. One works in protein-binding for a large pharmaceutical. One is a cell biologist working on pre-human genomic issues related to cancer-susceptibility. One is the geneticist I mentioned. I haven't met any who are afraid of "GMO's," in the same way that I haven't met any oceanographers who think that climate change science is a big hoax being perpetrated on a gullible public. I know that's anecdotal, but it's also telling.

I am not claiming to have done any original research on the matter. I offer no proof. I'm just offering up the position of a colleague, whose bio, it turns out, makes him worthy of consideration. If someone wants to offer an informed rebuttal, I'd be happy to ask him about it, since I would like to know the answer too. But I'm afraid, "I took a genetics class when I was an undergrad and I think he's wrong or you're wrong, everyone's wrong but me, so there" doesn't quite rise to the level of "informed rebuttal."
 
Of course it's possible. Just as it's possible you're incorrect and have decided to get all Internet about it in an effort to save face.

Took awhile, but there you finally have it. Though, I would say that if I wanted to save face, I wouldn't have shot myself in the foot and admitted to only taking a few pre-med courses involving genetics.

I would have claimed, you know, to be a geneticist on Venters' team. For example, of course.


But I'm afraid, "I took a genetics class when I was an undergrad and I think he's wrong or you're wrong, everyone's wrong but me, so there" doesn't quite rise to the level of "informed rebuttal."

Never claimed that he was wrong; I did, however, suggest that your recollection of a conversation isn't absolute. Evidently that threw you into a tizzy. But, as shown above, you finally admitted to possibly being human.

Welcome to the club.
 
Last edited:
You boys and your "science" and "facts." Just silly.
Can we please get back to splicing together a green bean and a gibbon?
 
You boys and your "science" and "facts." Just silly.
Can we please get back to splicing together a green bean and a gibbon?

I'd settle for bananas with a shelf-life longer than 3 days.

Or a dog that goes in a litter box and doesn't need to be walked.
 
I'm afraid I just don't consider Islandman an expert, any more than I consider myself one because of my own genetics class. I agree that something *feels* different about lab-based genomic manipulation. Geneticist-in-question's position is that it's no different from any other genetic adaptation. Just because it happens faster or at the hands of a lab-coated dork, doesn't make the fundamental process uniquely dangerous.

I am fortunate because of the nature of our kids' school to have lots of friends in the front lines of the sciences. One works in protein-binding for a large pharmaceutical. One is a cell biologist working on pre-human genomic issues related to cancer-susceptibility. One is the geneticist I mentioned. I haven't met any who are afraid of "GMO's," in the same way that I haven't met any oceanographers who think that climate change science is a big hoax being perpetrated on a gullible public. I know that's anecdotal, but it's also telling.

I am not claiming to have done any original research on the matter. I offer no proof. I'm just offering up the position of a colleague, whose bio, it turns out, makes him worthy of consideration. If someone wants to offer an informed rebuttal, I'd be happy to ask him about it, since I would like to know the answer too. But I'm afraid, "I took a genetics class when I was an undergrad and I think he's wrong or you're wrong, everyone's wrong but me, so there" doesn't quite rise to the level of "informed rebuttal."
You misunderstood my angle, perhaps. I wasn't asking in relation to his POV. More that I'm entirely undecided myself, having yet to investigate the subject enough to satisfy myself of my ability to form an opinion worth having yet.
When there are educated minds expressing opposing views, how did you choose? ...What seems logical based on what little you do know? Gut instinct? Respect for the reasoning and knowledge of a particular expert?
Just this once, I had no angle!
 
Amen. They'd be so delicious served with pricken.

(That's prawn-flavored chicken.)
 
dolf, I don't think there really is that much expert dissent from what Sonny's friend is saying. A lot of the studies people read about are just bad science, like the vaccine-autism link. Most of the arguments against GM crops today are with practices and implementation, not the technology.

Islandman's example of a banana on the first page as a "safely" modified food is particularly ironic, because banana crops have actually been through hell and back after being selectively bred into sterile, susceptible-to-disease fruit-mutants. Fruitants. Iman, did you see my question about proteins? I just don't think the science stacks up.
 
dolf, I don't think there really is that much expert dissent from what Sonny's friend is saying. A lot of the studies people read about are just bad science, like the vaccine-autism link. Most of the arguments against GM crops today are with practices and implementation, not the technology.
or bad reporting of good science? that's the other killer.
but there is still dissent from those touted as experts, who are given as much (if not more) press attention. if you knew nothing about science, would you recognise bad science?

it's more a general/hypothetical than specific to this subject.

the autism thing applied to me at the time, as I had young kids, so I did actually look into it enough to see it looked like suspect science and dire reporting. the whole dying or being disabled by unpleasant diseases thing was a proven risk.
 
or bad reporting of good science? that's the other killer.
but there is still dissent from those touted as experts, who are given as much (if not more) press attention. if you knew nothing about science, would you recognise bad science?

it's more a general/hypothetical than specific to this subject.

the autism thing applied to me at the time, as I had young kids, so I did actually look into it enough to see it looked like suspect science and dire reporting. the whole dying or being disabled by unpleasant diseases thing was a proven risk.

Well first thing we do is label all bad science so people know not to buy it in the grocery stores!

I think you bring up some really interesting points about science, journalism, and bad journalism. There are people touted as experts who go on TV and claim that climate change isn't real. Granted, it's usually some guy with a website and a BA in political science (totally the same kind of science) who just decided to "take a really good hard look at the 'facts.'" For the most part, I have established a few scientific news sources that I trust to bring me reliable information, and I'll usually do some extra research if it's a particularly contentious issue or if it interests me or affects me personally.

I believe it's important to approach all information critically and ask questions, but at some point, you have to defer to someone with the expertise that you lack, and we're an increasingly specialized society. Of course, people can be wrong, and experts are people. For the most part, I will withhold judgment until there's a convincing enough scientific consensus, but I couldn't give you a hard and fast definition for what that is.
 
Took awhile, but there you finally have it. Though, I would say that if I wanted to save face, I wouldn't have shot myself in the foot and admitted to only taking a few pre-med courses involving genetics.

I would have claimed, you know, to be a geneticist on Venters' team. For example, of course.

Never claimed that he was wrong; I did, however, suggest that your recollection of a conversation isn't absolute. Evidently that threw you into a tizzy. But, as shown above, you finally admitted to possibly being human.

Welcome to the club.

So far you've gone through Sonny is lying about being friends with him to Sonny remembered wrong to Sonny is lying about who he is to Sonny is in a tizzy.

You skipped over, "My undergrad genetics class may not have taught me everything I need to know about this, or may have been too long ago for me to speak knowledgably about it."

If any of that makes you feel better, stick with it. I seems foolish to me, but that's not any concert yours, and shouldn't be.
 
So far you've gone through Sonny is lying about being friends with him to Sonny remembered wrong to Sonny is lying about who he is to Sonny is in a tizzy.

You skipped over, "My undergrad genetics class may not have taught me everything I need to know about this, or may have been too long ago for me to speak knowledgably about it."

If any of that makes you feel better, stick with it. I seems foolish to me, but that's not any concert yours, and shouldn't be.

In summary, I'm guilty of my convictions and you of yours. As for lying, I don't care whether you are or not. I just wanted to read his explanation, and since you were so quick to claim friendship with him, I took advantage of that, and at which time, your "I don't care enough to follow up" kicked in. Oh, well, such is life.

Glad that's been solved. If only Hester had been around this could have all been solved sooner.
 
In summary, I'm guilty of my convictions and you of yours. As for lying, I don't care whether you are or not. I just wanted to read his explanation, and since you were so quick to claim friendship with him, I took advantage of that, and at which time, your "I don't care enough to follow up" kicked in. Oh, well, such is life.
This is beneath you.
 
You misunderstood my angle, perhaps. I wasn't asking in relation to his POV. More that I'm entirely undecided myself, having yet to investigate the subject enough to satisfy myself of my ability to form an opinion worth having yet.
When there are educated minds expressing opposing views, how did you choose? ...What seems logical based on what little you do know? Gut instinct? Respect for the reasoning and knowledge of a particular expert?
Just this once, I had no angle!
In an area where I am not an expert, and people I plausibly deem experts disagree? I guess I would make my decision on some personal version of cost-benefit analysis: I understand that there is disagreement about this, but the chances of the worst-case scenario is not enough of a deterrent to keep me from the value I get from X.

I can't think of too many areas where there is a legitimate divide in the scientific community on the macro level, though, can you? More often the divide is between the sciences and the laypersons.
 
In an area where I am not an expert, and people I plausibly deem experts disagree? I guess I would make my decision on some personal version of cost-benefit analysis: I understand that there is disagreement about this, but the chances of the worst-case scenario is not enough of a deterrent to keep me from the value I get from X.

I can't think of too many areas where there is a legitimate divide in the scientific community on the macro level, though, can you? More often the divide is between the sciences and the laypersons.

we're running out of proper scientific discord. stupid progress!
though there must be some... the speed of light was recently discovered not to be a constant, though the majority of scientists had accepted it as constant for ages. sometimes the crazy minority are onto something.
 
We can both agree that this is just an opinion and not a scientific fact.

No, I think he was technically right. His post "This is beneath you" was actually below you at that point.

Now that you've posted, it's above you.

Or actually, if we want to be accurate, it's between you.
 
No, I think he was technically right. His post "This is beneath you" was actually below you at that point.

Now that you've posted, it's above you.

Or actually, if we want to be accurate, it's between you.


Dammit.

Wish I had thought of that rejoinder.
 
Back
Top