3 ms·
This is a great "precedent" in both agricultural and patent law. Even if it wasn't a ruling, it sends a positive message. No matter how you look at it, the Ame
by chm 13y ago
This is a great "precedent" in both agricultural and patent law. Even if it wasn't a ruling, it sends a positive message.
No matter how you look at it, the Americas are a huge agricultural laboratory, and we're the guinea pigs.
Monsanto should disseminate knowledge about the science behind its products. Their current effort(http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-science-and-research.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-science-and-...) is too shallow and simple. Give me hard data, not PR stuff.
- smsm42 13y agoIt would be nice but useless as 99.999% of people protesting against GMO couldn't care less about science. They don't know the first thing about what GMO are and where they come from, all the know it's some scary stuff that "contains genes" and since it comes from the large corporation it would kill us all unless we march on the streets with slogans. More science helps when there's no information, when there's no interest in information more science would not do a thing.
- chm 13y agoThis does accurately describes the status quo, but I think it is Monsanto's (and others') duty to change it. The tremendous advances that have been made in science in the past century haven't percolated down to the populace yet. It takes time and sustained effort, but the level of scientific literacy could increase. Actually, I think we're at the stage where people know a lot of new terms, but don't really understand the concepts behind them. Like genes.