George Johnson and Matt Ridley

Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the most recent entry:


Granted America has an unmatched record of turning science into technological achievement, but the attitude to science is probably a lot more healthy in other developed nations. Where else in the world do we have creation science, reliance on polygraphs, fawning adherence to Freudian psychology and other such scientific nonsense apart from the USA? At least in Europe there is a debate on GM foods. In the U.S. it seems to be axiomatic that what is good for agribusiness is good for the citizen. Even the very compelling example of golden rice needs some analysis which I have not seen: how much will it cost the local community over some extended time to buy the seeds versus buying equivalent vitamin A supplements in another form? I guess the U.S. readership likes to lap up the stories about timid, misinformed limeys. But in itself that is inaccurate--non-scientific.

--Disgruntled Australian

(To reply, click here.)


Regarding the Human Genome Project, I think one of the most interesting aspects of genomics and proteomics is how the science of biology has moved out of the test tube and into the super-computer. How has the interaction between biologists and computer scientists altered the way either camp tackles their problems? Has the partnership been an easy one? I would be curious to know if the increasing reliance on computers in the life sciences has challenged the way life scientists view their pursuits and problems. And if any explanation is forthcoming, please refrain from using the phrase "paradigm shift".

--Brandon

(To reply, click here.)
[Ann Finkbeiner liked Brandon's ideas. Follow the thread to find out what happened next.]


Matt is absolutely right here. Typically, people weigh the risks of doing something against a presumably riskless nothing. But in fact, where things like golden rice are concerned, doing nothing does not present a risk of harm--it presents a certainty of harm. And the harm is often enormous; it's just ignored. I worry that Britain--and even more so continental Europe--serves as in incubator of toxic anti-science and anti-progress ideologies that might burst forth and damage the world. Fortunately, however, my many friends from Third-World countries have a sensible view of technology: they want it as soon as they can get it, because it beats starving and dying.

--A.G.Android

(To reply, click here.)


To A.G.Android: In fact the Precautionary Principle is very weak in the U.S. as compared to Europe. Primarily because most Americans don't seem to give a damn about what's going on around them if it doesn't immediately affect them. Not because all Americans are good empiricists, but because they're lazy. I'm not too familiar with the golden rice, but certainly there are things to be wary about re: GM organisms. Terminator seeds for instance: there are certainly ethical considerations to take into account with regard to repurcussions around the globe. Severely limiting genetic diversity in populations is not a good thing--Dawkins has said as much in articles bashing (rightfully) Prince Charles. I would not advocate an anti-science attitude, though I would certainly advocate caution with technology such as this, which we can not pretend to begin to understand (yet).

--Recycla

(To reply, click here.)


If only scientists and science writers would stop taking themselves so seriously. Really, they make it sound like monks locked up in high-tech scriptoria, hand-illuminating on parchment each genomic sequence. If that weren't bad enough, these folks are working in and writing about science. But, really, that tin god is about as effective as any other--carnival palm-readers, "new economy" economists, lesbian anarchists, mambo-salad people from outerspace. Put another way: while scientists are now more ready to admit what they do not know, they are quick to say "we've got a better idea then anyone else!" Umm, OK. We've all grown up with the wonders of science (moon shots and microwaves) and the blunders of science (nuclear arsenals, liquid soap dispensers). This reality-tunnel is firmly engrained in everyone in the Western world. But it would be refreshing to see the institutions of science be more accepting of play and ideas. I don't mean that we need to spend millions on researching ESP, but wouldn't be nice to have an exchange between occultists and physicists on the mysteries of life? Could be rather inspiring to us all.

--Tarquin

(To reply, click here.)
[John Brown replied: We have that. It's called the Kansas legislature. The occultists won.]


To Tarquin: If all you want science to do is "spark my imagination" you're every bit as bad as the carnival palm-readers and anarchist lesbians you despise. The business of science is to get at the truth, not entertain, and science delivers on its promise--not just with the truth but with physical benefits. How else do you think the technology that lets you spatter your personal reactions over the Fray came to exist?

--Edward Brynes

(To reply, click here.)

[For another thread on science and the occult--take your psychic powers to Las Vegas and then you'll be able to hire all the scientists you want--click here.]

(6/14)

• Telnaes: McCain's Foray Into Pandora's Box
• Gerson: How He Was Ambushed by History
• Parker: Palin Can Save the Mainstream Media
• Topic A: A Game-Changing Debate?