3 ms·

For health, safety, food and drug rules/regs: It's a crying shame that the arguably higher standard of two different reg frameworks, based on science where poss

For health, safety, food and drug rules/regs: It's a crying shame that the arguably higher standard of two different reg frameworks, based on science where possible, isn't the default, moral choice. Instead, the focus seems to be money and lawsuits first, consumers maybe.

acqq 11y ago
Do you mean "science" in the sense G.W. Bush used it in 2003? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jun/24/gm.food http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jun/24/gm.food
- bro-stick 11y ago
  I meant what I said. There is rarely enough consideration given to science (non NIPCC) and subject matter experts (non PR shills) in the full lifecycle of public policy: authoring, negotiation, implementation and revision. Special interest bias currently has purchased more than it's fair share of overriding influence. See also: Merchants of Doubt
  - acqq 11y ago
    When you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care. And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      Sure we can because dressed up Cato report clones "addendums" aren't science. Exposing the crap and bias is how to keep it real. Otherwise, inventing new names is passing the buck from critical thinking, awareness and fact-checking. They're the PR problem, not the scientific method. Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap and the talking head charlatans. Emperors new clothes lingo doesn't remove the jerks that condone personal threats to climate scientists.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap We know that these communities are not funded for that. The other side however, is, and only with the mission to introduce the confusion.
        bro-stick 11y ago
        Then their message won't be heard, and their research will be for naught if they cannot defend themselves in forums where it counts. A related principle: a company with amazing products (Hlaska and countless others) fails if no one knows about it.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I don't understand this comment. It almost seems like you're suggesting that no negotiation involving the US can involve "science" in any true sense, because we once had a very dumb President. That doesn't seem like a substantive discussion to the conversation, so you must mean something else. What was it?
  - acqq 11y ago
    Specifically, GM is presented by Monsanto et al (and in the linked article by G.W. Bush) as "scientifically non-dangerous" because the purpose of most of the modifications is not stated. The modifications are promoted as making the plants "resistant" hiding the fact that the resistance is to the pesticides developed by Monsanto. The whole IP aspect of GM is also intentionally not mentioned. Bush mentions the benefits "to Africa" whereas the poorest countries get the worst aspects of GM exactly because of IP rights which are being kept by Monsanto et al. "Science" in that context is just a word used to induce the good feeling, the same way "think of the children" is.
    - bro-stick 11y ago
      You're arguing something else: weaponized PR FUD "science." I was talking about the value of peer-reviewed, best known current time advice from respectable scientists and subject matter experts having more of a say in shaping public policy than either money or igorance alone. The times have changed some thankfully past the Cheney years, but the democratic operating system needs some patches to prevent the usurping the public interest.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Bush wasn't dumb. To suggest that is ridiculous.
    - ionised 11y ago
      No. He was just a fucking demagogue.
    - tptacek 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

Do you mean "science" in the sense G.W. Bush used it in 2003? http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jun/24/gm.food http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/jun/24/gm.food

bro-stick 11y ago
I meant what I said. There is rarely enough consideration given to science (non NIPCC) and subject matter experts (non PR shills) in the full lifecycle of public policy: authoring, negotiation, implementation and revision. Special interest bias currently has purchased more than it's fair share of overriding influence. See also: Merchants of Doubt
- acqq 11y ago
  When you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt I fully agree with you. But note that it's not that we can't call "science" when, for example, the tobacco industry finances some scientific research. It's how these particular research results are obtained (if they are bad science) or how they are used that we have to care. And how "science" word can be used for something not automatically positive, we have both G. W. Bush example I quoted and the examples from "Merchants of Doubt" that you mention.
  - bro-stick 11y ago
    Sure we can because dressed up Cato report clones "addendums" aren't science. Exposing the crap and bias is how to keep it real. Otherwise, inventing new names is passing the buck from critical thinking, awareness and fact-checking. They're the PR problem, not the scientific method. Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap and the talking head charlatans. Emperors new clothes lingo doesn't remove the jerks that condone personal threats to climate scientists.
    - acqq 11y ago
      > Most of the legit scientific communities needs to get better at/hire PR to trash the crap We know that these communities are not funded for that. The other side however, is, and only with the mission to introduce the confusion.
      - bro-stick 11y ago
        Then their message won't be heard, and their research will be for naught if they cannot defend themselves in forums where it counts. A related principle: a company with amazing products (Hlaska and countless others) fails if no one knows about it.
tptacek 11y ago
I don't understand this comment. It almost seems like you're suggesting that no negotiation involving the US can involve "science" in any true sense, because we once had a very dumb President. That doesn't seem like a substantive discussion to the conversation, so you must mean something else. What was it?
- acqq 11y ago
  Specifically, GM is presented by Monsanto et al (and in the linked article by G.W. Bush) as "scientifically non-dangerous" because the purpose of most of the modifications is not stated. The modifications are promoted as making the plants "resistant" hiding the fact that the resistance is to the pesticides developed by Monsanto. The whole IP aspect of GM is also intentionally not mentioned. Bush mentions the benefits "to Africa" whereas the poorest countries get the worst aspects of GM exactly because of IP rights which are being kept by Monsanto et al. "Science" in that context is just a word used to induce the good feeling, the same way "think of the children" is.
  - bro-stick 11y ago
    You're arguing something else: weaponized PR FUD "science." I was talking about the value of peer-reviewed, best known current time advice from respectable scientists and subject matter experts having more of a say in shaping public policy than either money or igorance alone. The times have changed some thankfully past the Cheney years, but the democratic operating system needs some patches to prevent the usurping the public interest.
- gadders 11y ago
  Bush wasn't dumb. To suggest that is ridiculous.
  - ionised 11y ago
    No. He was just a fucking demagogue.
  - tptacek 11y ago