5 ms·

+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninform

by epgui 4y ago

+1 I’m a biochemist and while I’m not interested in sticking my neck out to defend any company, a lot of the criticism directed at Monsanto is unfair, uninformed and/or unintelligent. This is particularly true of criticism levied against glyphosate (one of the least-bad herbicides I know of) and GMOs (which people are usually just super confused about). Disclaimer: zero conflict of interest, I make all my money building software in the non-bio world.

tptacek 4y ago
Neat, I have a kid graduating with a biochem undergrad degree right now. Reassure him about his job prospects! :P
- epgui 4y ago
  There's no money in life science except at the very top. All the (dear) nutjobs that want to "follow the money" should look into software engineering haha.
eurasiantiger 4y ago
- izzygonzalez 4y ago
  Non sequiturs are not helpful during polarized conversations. I can infer your meaning, but the idea that you're gesturing at seems absurd to me.
  - eurasiantiger 4y ago
    It seems absurd to you that Monsanto would try to affect academics and the scientific world view? Did you not read even the headline of the OP article?
    - izzygonzalez 4y ago
      Oh that's standard fare. Institutional incentives are not always aligned with human needs. Not to reduce the severity of it all. It's really bad. I'm more incredulous about academically trained domain experts being "brainwashed". Corruption and incompetence are simpler explanations that also make sense.
      - eurasiantiger 4y ago
        Is there a difference?
        epgui 4y ago
        Yes, there's a really big difference lol. I would encourage you to consult a dictionary or wikipedia to clear it up.
- epgui 4y ago
  I have spent 12 years considering all aspects of the question (and for what it's worth, I will never be done learning), but thank you for checking. You have a very strange idea of what it's like to study and do science/research.
  - eurasiantiger 4y ago
    Am I wrong in saying there are plenty of academics who pursue a career primarily in acquiring grants and funding? What is the ratio of those people to those who are in it for the truth? Truth often doesn’t pay the bills.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Uh... In many countries, almost all academics spend a significant portion of their time applying for funding, but I'm not clear on why you think these scientists don't have a genuine interest in the "truth" lol. Lay down your tinfoil hat. Scientists who discover new things, disprove some other thing, reshape human knowledge or otherwise change the status quo... these are rockstar-scientists, and everyone wants to be them and do exactly that. You can't just be a contrarian though: you have to be right.
- chillacy 4y ago
  In my experience, insinuations of brainwashing are applicable in both directions. We all hold assumptions about the world which lay upon foundational beliefs like a pile of bricks. The ones at the bottom are often invisible or taken for granted.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
If you run "ad campaigns" like Monsanto I don't think you can really call it unfair at this point. Why demand fairness here? If you are a biochemist you may have been either a victim or a participant in their campaigns. You should be angry at them if they damage scientific integrity apart from that because it will reflect on anyone working in that field. Here is the multi billion dollar company trying to influence reporting but this comment from a random redditor is wrong and a bit unfair? I don't get the incentive to even mention that.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  Even if Monsanto is trying to influence reporting, that doesn't mean that the criticism against GMO is automatically correct. That doesn't even make sense The previous commenters are talking about the criticism of GMO in which GMO organisms are suddenly killing babies because there's corn making fish proteins. The criticisms literally don't make sense from a biochemical mechanism standpoint, and the previous commenters are pointing this out. That means that the previous commenters are standing up for scientific integrity while you come along saying "big company bad, therefore everything big company says is lie"
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    A genetically modified mold is used to create citric acid for a hundred years now and it used in almost all types of food. Maybe better if people don't know but even there are still problems with intellectual property. Still, not the point. The topic of the article is corporate propaganda and you hand wave criticism away by making fun of "big company bad" remarks. To feel better than some of the most stupid criticism? That doesn't elevate you that much higher. Yes, big company is bad. It did influence reporting and research for its own interest. That is very, very bad. Much worse than a criticism not hitting the mark by miles.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > I don't get the incentive to even mention that. "The best way to damage a cause is to advocate for it badly." If you allow bad anti-GMO/Monsanto arguments to proliferate, the good ones will have a harder time reaching the light.

by epgui 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

Neat, I have a kid graduating with a biochem undergrad degree right now. Reassure him about his job prospects! :P

epgui 4y ago
There's no money in life science except at the very top. All the (dear) nutjobs that want to "follow the money" should look into software engineering haha.

eurasiantiger 4y ago

izzygonzalez 4y ago
Non sequiturs are not helpful during polarized conversations. I can infer your meaning, but the idea that you're gesturing at seems absurd to me.
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  It seems absurd to you that Monsanto would try to affect academics and the scientific world view? Did you not read even the headline of the OP article?
  - izzygonzalez 4y ago
    Oh that's standard fare. Institutional incentives are not always aligned with human needs. Not to reduce the severity of it all. It's really bad. I'm more incredulous about academically trained domain experts being "brainwashed". Corruption and incompetence are simpler explanations that also make sense.
    - eurasiantiger 4y ago
      Is there a difference?
      - epgui 4y ago
        Yes, there's a really big difference lol. I would encourage you to consult a dictionary or wikipedia to clear it up.
epgui 4y ago
I have spent 12 years considering all aspects of the question (and for what it's worth, I will never be done learning), but thank you for checking. You have a very strange idea of what it's like to study and do science/research.
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  Am I wrong in saying there are plenty of academics who pursue a career primarily in acquiring grants and funding? What is the ratio of those people to those who are in it for the truth? Truth often doesn’t pay the bills.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Uh... In many countries, almost all academics spend a significant portion of their time applying for funding, but I'm not clear on why you think these scientists don't have a genuine interest in the "truth" lol. Lay down your tinfoil hat. Scientists who discover new things, disprove some other thing, reshape human knowledge or otherwise change the status quo... these are rockstar-scientists, and everyone wants to be them and do exactly that. You can't just be a contrarian though: you have to be right.
chillacy 4y ago
In my experience, insinuations of brainwashing are applicable in both directions. We all hold assumptions about the world which lay upon foundational beliefs like a pile of bricks. The ones at the bottom are often invisible or taken for granted.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

If you run "ad campaigns" like Monsanto I don't think you can really call it unfair at this point. Why demand fairness here? If you are a biochemist you may have been either a victim or a participant in their campaigns. You should be angry at them if they damage scientific integrity apart from that because it will reflect on anyone working in that field. Here is the multi billion dollar company trying to influence reporting but this comment from a random redditor is wrong and a bit unfair? I don't get the incentive to even mention that.

netizen-936824 4y ago
Even if Monsanto is trying to influence reporting, that doesn't mean that the criticism against GMO is automatically correct. That doesn't even make sense The previous commenters are talking about the criticism of GMO in which GMO organisms are suddenly killing babies because there's corn making fish proteins. The criticisms literally don't make sense from a biochemical mechanism standpoint, and the previous commenters are pointing this out. That means that the previous commenters are standing up for scientific integrity while you come along saying "big company bad, therefore everything big company says is lie"
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  A genetically modified mold is used to create citric acid for a hundred years now and it used in almost all types of food. Maybe better if people don't know but even there are still problems with intellectual property. Still, not the point. The topic of the article is corporate propaganda and you hand wave criticism away by making fun of "big company bad" remarks. To feel better than some of the most stupid criticism? That doesn't elevate you that much higher. Yes, big company is bad. It did influence reporting and research for its own interest. That is very, very bad. Much worse than a criticism not hitting the mark by miles.
car_analogy 4y ago
> I don't get the incentive to even mention that. "The best way to damage a cause is to advocate for it badly." If you allow bad anti-GMO/Monsanto arguments to proliferate, the good ones will have a harder time reaching the light.