3 ms·
That's a moot point. Science isn't about banning dangerous chemicals. It is about providing politicians the facts they need to make an educated decision regardi
by marvin 13y ago
That's a moot point. Science isn't about banning dangerous chemicals. It is about providing politicians the facts they need to make an educated decision regarding whether a chemical should be banned or not.
This is simply another another example of a long tradition of standing behind scientists when their findings agree with you, only to shun, ignore and discredit them when their findings are inconvenient. Tobacco, DDT, asbestos, deep sea diving, global warming.
Science rarely cares about what to do. It's only about finding out what is true. If politicians read Haynes's research and concludes that this is an acceptable tradeoff, there's no problem. If they are unaware of Haynes's research and make a decision on incorrect assumptions, that is a problem.
- route66 13y agoSee here the word "scientific" used by a politician to prepare for some hardball during the ongoing TTIP negotiations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcoue-mlQxw&t=56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcoue-mlQxw&t=56 Multinationals will be able to sue countries for their business obstructing laws concerning environmental legislation etc., thereby conveniently bypassing democratic process.
- dhimes 13y agoMultinationals will be able to sue countries for their business obstructing laws concerning environmental legislation etc., thereby conveniently bypassing democratic process. That's a ridiculously stupid idea. We are now all going to be vulnerable to the most gullible among us.
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoI think that's currently called 'Representative Democracy' Ba dum chhhh!
- baxter001 13y agoDeep sea diving? what study are you referring to there?
- marvin 13y agoNot well known in the US, but I've read some history on the Norwegian petroleum industry. There was a big political tug-of-war here in the 1980s when it became evident that current procedures for deep sea diving caused delibitating long-term injuries to the nervous system of the divers. This was very inconvenient for the oil companies and national authorities, because building a deep-sea pipeline was necessary if the nation was to have control over its petroleum exports. There was a very intense campaign (however not necessarily a conspiracy; thousands of people had economic incentives to ignore these findings) of discrediting the scientist who made the findings. The research was initially the result of the single Ph.D. at the Department of Medicine at the University of Bergen. Lawsuits concerning reparations to divers who kept working after these findings were made, are in fact still ongoing. But the science was quite clear at the time, and it has become clearer still afterwards. I wouldn't be surprised if similar controversies happened over this in the US. But it hasn't become a public debate to the same degree.
- MaysonL 13y agoNot to speak of football and concussions.