3 ms·

Good points. I'll admit the distinction isn't completely black and white to me. I do think that there is a distinction between NGOs and commercial entities. One

by grzm 10y ago

Good points. I'll admit the distinction isn't completely black and white to me. I do think that there is a distinction between NGOs and commercial entities. One intuition for that is that we've got words to distinguish between the two. And as you note, its the purpose of the NGO to pursue its agenda. For the commercial entity, the science in these cases is often accidental to their main purpose, which is to sell some other product. Are you aware of NGO-funded science on the level of industry-funded science? I don't think this NGO/industry distinction is the strongest argument in showing the statement isn't "picking horses". If the scientists were being political in, say, treating GMO separately, or creating FUD around GMO, I think it's likely they would have specifically included GMO in their statement, as if they were against GMO, it would align very well with the climate change and endocrine disruptor positions they take. Edit to add: I'll also come clean on my motivation for posting. There are so many accusations of bias that I'm trying to examine statements as honestly as I can, avoiding knee-jerk reactions as much as possible. For example, it would be unfair of me to assume that because you bring up GMO that you're a "climate change denier" or some other unfounded accusation. I see way too much of that type of behavior, and it does nothing but deepen the divisions between people. That's not useful if I actually want you to, in turn, treat me charitably. After all, we're in a discussion forum, right? :)

marcus_holmes 10y ago
It gets blurred because NGOs spend a lot of money lobbying governments, and governments do spend a lot of money funding science. It would be hard to believe that government science funding policy isn't at least influenced by NGO lobbying. And then there's the matter of scientists being members of NGOs. Again, I would fully expect that a large number of (e.g.) environmental science researchers would be members of (e.g.) Greenpeace because I would expect that people passionate about the environment would want to study it, and also join organisations that are also passionate about the environment. There's nothing suspicious or conspiracy-engendering about this, but it does mean that there's a good chance the NGO is going to be able to get a scientist to write a paper saying something they want said. I find it fascinating how the politics neatly align with the beliefs (right-leaning people almost always deny climate change but believe in nuclear power or GMO foods, for example). Then the arguments selectively invoke "it's the science!" for the beliefs that are supported by the science, and conveniently ignore the science for the beliefs that aren't. As far as I'm aware, if the scientific community consensus is to be taken as the correct course of action every time, we should (for example): stop using fossil fuels and replace them with nuclear power plants. Almost nobody would be happy with this, though!

by grzm 10y ago

marcus_holmes 10y ago

It gets blurred because NGOs spend a lot of money lobbying governments, and governments do spend a lot of money funding science. It would be hard to believe that government science funding policy isn't at least influenced by NGO lobbying. And then there's the matter of scientists being members of NGOs. Again, I would fully expect that a large number of (e.g.) environmental science researchers would be members of (e.g.) Greenpeace because I would expect that people passionate about the environment would want to study it, and also join organisations that are also passionate about the environment. There's nothing suspicious or conspiracy-engendering about this, but it does mean that there's a good chance the NGO is going to be able to get a scientist to write a paper saying something they want said. I find it fascinating how the politics neatly align with the beliefs (right-leaning people almost always deny climate change but believe in nuclear power or GMO foods, for example). Then the arguments selectively invoke "it's the science!" for the beliefs that are supported by the science, and conveniently ignore the science for the beliefs that aren't. As far as I'm aware, if the scientific community consensus is to be taken as the correct course of action every time, we should (for example): stop using fossil fuels and replace them with nuclear power plants. Almost nobody would be happy with this, though!