Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (1680)	3/18/1999 12:07:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Another good sign...someone finally called the UK tabloids "crap" New Scientist Editorial 3/20/1999 No more nice guys... Beware the F word, unless you know what it means IT'S NOT OFTEN that scientists and editors of major newspapers get to trade insults. But in Britain this past week, Robert May, the Chief Scientific Adviser, found him-self described as "contemptibly pompous" in a leading article in one tabloid while the editor of another laid into him for his "vulgar contempt" for her paper. To be fair, "pompous" is not the right word for May. His major crime seemed to have been an excess of forthrightness--he had reportedly described the content of some tabloid newspapers as "crap". Strangely, this heated exchange came at the launch of Britain's Science Week. It is a week when hundreds of museums, universities and research laboratories from Aberdeen to Aberystwyth put on special exhibitions. Normally, it is a cosy time when ministers and their civil servants make bland speeches and the press says nice things about science. That kind of cosiness seems quite impossible at the moment. For months before last week's angry exchange, the British newspapers have been at war with the scientific establishment over the environmental impact and safety of genetically modified foods. Debate has reached the degree of savagery normally reserved for the most emotive political issues. On one level it is good to see science exciting some real passion as the public tries to tackle the impact of genetic engineering. The government must also accept that the rules have changed and that it cannot expect the public to listen quietly. Its advisers no longer command the trust of the public. Credibility vanished during the crisis over BSE when assurances about the safety of eating beef turned sour. And without trust, no amount of scientific argument is convincing. But while a bit of passion may be welcome, the language of debate has taken a strange turn. In several papers, the most frequently used word in any science article seems to be "Frankenstein", whether it is Frankenstein foods, Frankenstein crops, or this week in The Express, "Frankenstein bird". The F word is, of course, meant to imply that scientists are simply creating freakish monsters out of curiosity. That's an insult, not just to the scientists but to the real meaning of the Frankenstein story. When Mary Shelley completed her novel in 1817, it was not intended as a simple attack on the hubris of scientists. Rather, it was a terrifying tragedy of rejection: a freakish monster was cast out both by its own creator and everyone it encountered. Scientists may indeed create some strange things but let's not repeat Dr Frankenstein's error of uncaring rejection. Three-legged chicks (the "Frankenstein bird") are probably not too pretty but such research will uncover the genes that determine how limbs develop (see p 21) and may have enormous consequences for dealing with genetic diseases. Why describe them as "freaks"? Last week, the editor of the The Express urged May to provide "facts rather than insults". On behalf of the much-maligned chickens, and the discussion of science in general, let's hope everyone including The Express will take this advice. Now we have the passion, let's deal with the issues. newscientist.com

To: Edscharp who wrote (1680)	3/18/1999 12:56:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

With all this ancient genetic engineering going on, why does the UK consumer wish to print a message of denial on each vegetable, thousands of years later? I'm afraid the UK has descended into utter nonsense. By the way, the maize study story I posted is completely in line with my earlier labeling comments; genetic engineering using the most advanced techniques is safer and more precise than earlier technologies. Also, this study proves you can't label products as "GM" or "GM-free" and be scientifically (or legally) correct. There isn't one "corn" in the modern world...there are many, each with different (and untested) genetic modifications in many areas. Note, this implies that the labeling attempts in the UK would be likewise illegal, if challenged. (you said) Concerning your point about genetic engineering by ancient farmers