|
Trabisnikof posted:It would be bad science and bad policy making to weight the currently available evidence as completely valid or in a vacuum. It is still perfectly valid to not approve an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown. Especially since its not permanent and I'm pretty sure GMOs will keep being made even if they can't be used in Europe. Your same arguments would have you happily voting to ban CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. Or the use of vaccines. Or the fluoridation of tap water. Or the study of clouds with iron seedings, or any of the other activity that your kind, and I mean "your kind" with all the venom you can imagine because it truly is your crackpot kind that dresses up in a false cloak of rationality to attempt to excuse your monstrosity. "Well some Africans might die." Its perfectly valid, after all, to not approve an an activity because the evidence of benefits is marginal and some risks are still unknown. Do you want to say the preponderance of evidence says that GMO risks are still unknown, more so than the risks involved in the LHC? If you would say that, you'd be wrong. Science is about evidence. There is no evidence that GMOs present a risk. In short your argument is both morally bankrupt and anti-science.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are tons of papers showing how economically and scientifically valid UAVs are in terms of use and positive impact. But yet, the FAA hasn't approved them because of excuses, thus it must be an anti-science decision. That's the basic logic to prove that any blanket GMO ban is anti-science, so it seems to hold here. They're both technologies (like the person who brought up the ICE).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The FAA says that you need an experimental permit to fly a UAV (except for that recent exemption for movies) unless you're the government. This is incorrect. Also, UAV regulations have NOTHING TO DO WITH GMOS AND THEIR BANS. They do not reinforce your point, or make your argument any more valid. Get back on topic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Your same arguments would have you happily voting to ban CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. Or the use of vaccines. Or the fluoridation of tap water. Or the study of clouds with iron seedings, or any of the other activity that your kind, and I mean "your kind" with all the venom you can imagine because it truly is your crackpot kind that dresses up in a false cloak of rationality to attempt to excuse your monstrosity. "Well some Africans might die." Once again, please show me how using GMOs in Europe would save lives on the scale that vaccines do? If you care about making evidence based arguments that is. Also, the anti-science nature of your position is clear when you use the phrase "no evidence", since you're just pick-and-choosing the science you like. Personally, I would have voted against CERN and the LHC just because we could use the money for more important scientific research honestly. Our physics research is far more well funded than our research of the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive. But that's neither here nor there. CommieGIR posted:This is incorrect. Well, the FAA disagrees with you: https://www.faa.gov/uas/ But why didn't you get all caps when someone brought up the automobile? Or is it that people being off topic only bothers you if they disagree with you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The FAA says that you need an experimental permit to fly a UAV (except for that recent exemption for movies) unless you're the government. The FAA regulations are not bans. The government is actively using them, which hardly makes them banned. They are allowed for hobbyists within certain limits. They are actively working on a regulatory framework to expand the current allowances for civil uses, and they are allowed for civil uses with an appropriate license. None of this is anti-science behaviour. None of this is knee jerk attempts to destroy and cripple the technology in question. Is it is merely an actual conservative approach to building a regulatory framework, and is a great example for the way Europe would be treating GMOs if they were approaching them very conservatively but also scientifically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:None of this is anti-science behaviour. None of this is knee jerk attempts to destroy and cripple the technology in question. Is it is merely an actual conservative approach to building a regulatory framework, and is a great example for the way Europe would be treating GMOs if they were approaching them very conservatively but also scientifically. Do you have evidence that if Europe allows individual countries to ban GMOs that it would "destroy and cripple the technology"? Of course, you're also unaware that Europe does have a regulatory framework and has approved a number of GMOs for use but don't let that evidence get in the way of your arguments!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, the FAA disagrees with you: https://www.faa.gov/uas/ It just goes to show that you don't know what the gently caress you are talking about : https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn1 http://www.uavm.com/images/ac91-57.pdf It bothers me because GMO bans and regulating airspace traffic are nowhere near the same thing, nor does it validate your argument. You are trying to move goal posts to make your argument valid instead of present an argument with a succinct point. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Personally, I would have voted against CERN and the LHC just because we could use the money for more important scientific research honestly. Our physics research is far more well funded than our research of the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive. But that's neither here nor there. Oh? Is that so? By how much is Physics research more well funded than the rest of it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
How many US scientists have argued that scientifically, UAVs can be flown safely, and were summarily fired from their position for their scientific stance being opposed ideologically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh? Is that so? By how much is Physics research more well funded than the rest of it? Get back on topic geez. But to answer your question, the budget for CERN is about the same as total USA Federal spending on all environmental science research combined. GlyphGryph posted:How many US scientists have argued that scientifically, UAVs can be flown safely, and were summarily fired from their position for their scientific stance being opposed ideologically? Just because there are people motivated by dumb reasons doesn't mean all decisions made by different people about the same topic are made for the same reasons. Hope that helps!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just because there are people motivated by dumb reasons doesn't mean all decisions made by different people about the same topic are made for the same reasons. Hope that helps! Like, banning GMOs, where they are motivated by abject morons and paranoid delusions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just because there are people motivated by dumb reasons doesn't mean all decisions made by different people about the same topic are made for the same reasons. Hope that helps! Get back on topic geez. The firing of the scientist IS the actual topic, no matter how far it strayed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Once again, please show me how using GMOs in Europe would save lives on the scale that vaccines do? If you care about making evidence based arguments that is. How does a joint report by UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) suit you, estimating that nearly 870 million people, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012? This is easily on a scale comparable to the benefit of vaccines. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/ Here are the commonly accepted problems with world hunger : 1. Worldwide, food is not produced where it is mostly consumed or needed 2. Energy, chemical and genetic inputs used in conventional agriculture are not affordable for all farmers 3. Current trends in diets and food habits are not compatible with the sustainable use of global resources 4. Markets chains are ineffective in ensuring access to food for everyone and lead to substantial food wastes 1 and 3 are largely unaffected. Growing more food in Europe does nothing to help the problems of 1 and 3. GMOs are a kind of food, and while they are much more sustainable in regards to the use of global resources - requiring less water, pesticides, etc than organic farming techniques - again that is a long term view that impacts everyone, not just Europeans and Africans famines. 4 also has relevance to GMOs, as they have advantages in the improvement of longevity with regards to market chains and last mile distribution issues. But Europe has infrastructure in place that makes any lessons learned there not really relevant to the problems of spoilage in Africa. However, 2 is directly impacted by GMO technology. Europe banning GMOs has a chilling effect on their research and development costs, directly influencing 2 in a substantial way given the size of Europe's economy. Less development of GMOs means their price is higher for less effect. Further, the non-use of GMOs means Europeans must consume more energy and chemical resources to grow their crops, which directly impacts the global price and has direct pressure on African countries agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Personally, I would have voted against CERN and the LHC just because we could use the money for more important scientific research honestly. Our physics research is far more well funded than our research of the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive. But that's neither here nor there. Obviously, the only way to increase environmental science funding is to axe physics funding 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Trabisnikof posted:But to answer your question, the budget for CERN is about the same as total USA Federal spending on all environmental science research combined. Is that so? First, you're moving the goalposts again. Here is your original claim: Trabisnikof posted:Personally, I would have voted against CERN and the LHC just because we could use the money for more important scientific research honestly. Our physics research is far more well funded than our research of the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive. But that's neither here nor there. Now, the annual budget for CERN was 1246.5 million CHF, or $1.3 billion, in 2012 (it was a peak; lower before and after). That include LHC and everything else they do, from every source, not just the US. Meanwhile, the NIH's annual budget is $30 billion, the EPA's annual budget has been above $7.5 billion annually for more than a decade, and the DoE's Biological and Environmental Research budget has been around $0.5 billion annually for the past couple of years. Somehow you're saying that within the spending of these three agencies, amounting to about $38 billion annually, is not enough research of the "biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive" (that includes people, too, you know) to counter the $1.3 or less CERN gets in total, from all member countries, not just the US? Or do you have other sources saying differently?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
dunno about lack of value, but i certainly think it's valid to let gmos get banned to focus on lobbying for more important things. they're not that important, and there's gotta be a better way to spend your time and political influence smashing your forehead against all the folks that freak out about gmos. like, say, smashing your forehead against the folks that freak out about nuclear. e: vvvv that last article seems.....really shallow in its analysis of the 'public' A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:dunno about lack of value, but i certainly think it's valid to let gmos get banned to focus on lobbying for more important things. they're not that important, and there's gotta be a better way to spend your time and political influence smashing your forehead against all the folks that freak out about gmos. This is a very poor argument. It's in the same vein as "we should stop spending money on science/space/military because people are starving". They are not mutually exclusive goals. If we stopped focusing on GMO's across the board, that time and energy isn't going to just magically go to campaigning for nuclear. Besides that, they're very similar topics (sadly), people fear nuclear and GMO's for very similar reasons, though granted in the case of nuclear there is SOME justification, even if it isn't as relevant as it's made out to be. They both stem from a lack of understanding of science, and a distrust of scientists/governments in general, and a gut feeling that we shouldn't be "meddling" with things we don't understand (even though we do understand them). Also, on the subject of whether we know that GMO's are beneficial: A meta-analysis of 147 studies on the impact of GMO's that found, among other things, that GMO crops:
The benefits of GMO crops are very well documented. To say that the research is "not valid" or "in a vacuum" is just putting your hands over your ears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please explain to me how requiring proof of value before allowing an activity is anti-science. Is the FDA anti-science? The FDA doesn't ban products on the basis of proof of value, and GMOs are the only example of this being done in Europe. You're wrong in several ways
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The FDA doesn't ban products on the basis of proof of value, and GMOs are the only example of this being done in Europe. You're wrong in several ways Technically, the FDA bans all products by default and only allows them to be sold after proof of value. However, that's because we have historically had issues with people selling drugs that were harmful/not helpful. Is there a historical incidence of unsafe GMO crops?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Personally, I would have voted against CERN and the LHC just because we could use the money for more important scientific research honestly. Our physics research is far more well funded than our research of the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive. But that's neither here nor there. The US contributed a total of about half a billion dollars to LHC development overall, averaging to about $50M / year for 10 years. That's extremely cheap, and it's an especially good investment if you understand how basic physics research often fuels discoveries and innovation in all of those other fields that you listed I'm also not sure how you quantify whether we're spending enough on physics versus spending enough on biology, chemistry, etc. Frankly, we don't spend enough in any of these fields. What I'm saying is that it's good that you didn't get to vote on whether we helped to fund the LHC
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Technically, the FDA bans all products by default and only allows them to be sold after proof of value. The FDA allows dietary supplements and homeopathic remedies to be sold despite neither of these things having any value, so I think that you're wrong on this matter
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Technically, the FDA bans all products by default and only allows them to be sold after proof of value. Bullllllllshit. They specifically have labels for products that do not. And the vitamin/homeopathic industry lobbied to remove regulation of their products.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The US contributed a total of about half a billion dollars to LHC development overall, averaging to about $50M / year for 10 years. That's extremely cheap, and it's an especially good investment if you understand how basic physics research often fuels discoveries and innovation in all of those other fields that you listed I actually quantified it earlier: Absurd Alhazred posted:Meanwhile, the NIH's annual budget is $30 billion, the EPA's annual budget has been above $7.5 billion annually for more than a decade, and the DoE's Biological and Environmental Research budget has been around $0.5 billion annually for the past couple of years. Somehow you're saying that within the spending of these three agencies, amounting to about $38 billion annually, is not enough research of the "biology, chemistry, and ecology of the world we need to survive" (that includes people, too, you know) to counter the $1.3 or less CERN gets in total, from all member countries, not just the US? If your numbers are right, it makes the original claim even more laughably false, as in BER's budget last year was larger than US LHC support over the past 10. To be fair, though, I'm in favor of spending even more money on this and less on blowing people up abroad. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I actually quantified it earlier: I saw that, but I was wondering if Trabisnikof had some specific numbers in mind, like maybe he'll somehow claim that biophysics and quantum chemistry research is all "just physics", or maybe he's assuming that buying an apache helicopter counts as physics research or something He also probably discounts the fact that physics research feeds heavily into those other sciences. If physics research leads to the creation of an MRI machine, does that make the MRI machine not a huge advancement in medicine simply because it wasn't created exclusively with medical research funding? How about a biophysics project like, such as protein folding, is that biology research or physics research? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If your numbers are right, it makes the original claim even more laughably false, as in BER's budget last year was larger than US LHC support over the past 10. That's good though, since that stuff is probably way more relevant to society than particle physics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That's good though, since that stuff is probably way more relevant to society than particle physics. This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have any understanding of the history of scientific research and discovery, or are you just working from gut instinct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about. How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have any understanding of the history of scientific research and discovery, or are you just working from gut instinct? For one thing, without theoretical physicists contemplating the problems of genetics, we would not have had molecular biology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That's good though, since that stuff is probably way more relevant to society than particle physics. You wouldn't be posting from a modern computer without an understanding in particle physics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You wouldn't be posting from a modern computer without an understanding in particle physics. That's more condensed matter physics. Although I guess electrons are particles. Just to be clear, I'll be happy for there to be more basic science funding in biology, there's way too much "goal-oriented" crap there that is just going to lead to generations of grad students learning how to lie about how their research ties in to fighting cancer or AIDS or Ebola or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
^^^ I think he's referring to The Internet, the existence of which owes a lot to CERN specifically, but it's all good physics researchsilence_kit posted:That's good though, since that stuff is probably way more relevant to society than particle physics. I swear the kind thing must come from people playing Civilization and assuming that in real life you just put all of your research funding into Cure For Cancer and that's what gets discovered next QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:^^^ I think he's referring to The Internet, the existence of which owes a lot to CERN specifically, but it's all good physics research It's like that in basic science, too. It's gotta be quantum computing or nanoscience or whatever the latest buzzword is. You can't just say "ooh, I did some prep work on this system and I think I have a way of doing something cool with it, give me some money so I can feed my family while I find out more!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Technically, the FDA bans all products by default and only allows them to be sold after proof of value. This is why, as we all know, McDonalds has been put out of business and banned from the shores of the Land of the Free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's more condensed matter physics. Although I guess electrons are particles. Particle physics was essential to the development of the transistor, precision timing, lasers....lots of IT applications owe their development and increasing performance to particle physics and physics in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Particle physics was essential to the development of the transistor. In what way? I may just be having pedantic issues with applying the current term vs. the contemporary to that era. School me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:This is why, as we all know, McDonalds has been put out of business and banned from the shores of the Land of the Free. I'm sorry I did not specify "all products falling within the appropriate regulatory definition for drugs, biologically, and medical devices" and assumed you twits would infer that part of the statement. The point being that the reason the FDA starts from a "prove value for approval" baseline, rather than a "prove harm to ban" baseline, is because of the long history of drugs that don't work and or are actively harmful. In situations without that history (you know, like GMOs), proof of value standards are inappropriate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In what way? I may just be having pedantic issues with applying the current term vs. the contemporary to that era. School me. Research into Quantum Mechanics by Eugene Wigner laid the ground work for understanding how to manipulate semiconductors. It was basically the ground work that Bell Labs would follow up on. Kalman posted:I'm sorry I did not specify "all products falling within the appropriate regulatory definition for drugs, biologically, and medical devices" and assumed you twits would infer that part of the statement. Oh, right, because tainted supplements and overdoses cause no harm. Thank god the FDA can't regulate it... CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's like that in basic science, too. It's gotta be quantum computing or nanoscience or whatever the latest buzzword is. You can't just say "ooh, I did some prep work on this system and I think I have a way of doing something cool with it, give me some money so I can feed my family while I find out more!" We're getting into dangerous (and off-topic) territory here, but it is not a problem that we have to convincingly sell our ideas. While every field has some susceptibility to hyped up topics and buzzwords, you do not have to reduce yourself to it. People who whine about not being able to do TRUE AND PURE BASIC RESEARCH are usually just lazy. You don't get to siphon free money off the public for a pet project without having to justify why the work is interesting and important. No biologist has to shoehorn in some tenuous link to human disease, that's just what bad scientists do when they're terrible at big picture thinking. I agree at least that it's unreasonable to expect scientists to predict immediate tangible impacts from the research.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Research into Quantum Mechanics by Eugene Wigner laid the ground work for understanding how to manipulate semiconductors. It was basically the ground work that Bell Labs would follow up on. Well, I meant that it fit in more into what we would now consider condensed matter than particle Physics. The Wigner research kind of comes from when these weren't yet specialized subdisciplines of the then very new QM. disheveled posted:We're getting into dangerous (and off-topic) territory here, but it is not a problem that we have to convincingly sell our ideas. While every field has some susceptibility to hyped up topics and buzzwords, you do not have to reduce yourself to it. People who whine about not being able to do TRUE AND PURE BASIC RESEARCH are usually just lazy. You don't get to siphon free money off the public for a pet project without having to justify why the work is interesting and important. No biologist has to shoehorn in some tenuous link to human disease, that's just what bad scientists do when they're terrible at big picture thinking. Well, yes, justification should be there, it's the latter part I'm worried about. There's too many funding lines for immediate results that just encourage lying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, right, because tainted supplements and overdoses cause no harm. Thank god the FDA can't regulate it... You know I agree with you re: EU regulation being stupid, right? My entire point is that the only reason the FDA ever does proof of value regulation (which *can* be a reasonable way to regulate) is where the entire history of the industry is so rife with abuse that proof of value is required. Supplements are mostly harmless (yes, even with high profile counter examples), which is why they're regulated under a proof of harm standard; drugs and medical devices generally present risk of harm and have a longer history of harm and thus are regulated under a stronger standard. Given that there's no history of GMO crops being harmful, the proof of value standard is completely inappropriate for use with GMOs and any reasonable scientific regulatory scheme wouldn't use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:11
|
|