Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mike_c

(36,269 posts)
22. oh no, it's well understood that self study is about as objective...
Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:07 AM
Apr 2013

...as self regulation, especially when it is ultimately run by management, which is what self study ultimately boils down to. But let's be realistic. I won't claim that the scientists working in Monsanto labs are incorruptible, but they likely received the same sort of ethical training that I received. Most of us view science as a culture of honesty, and while that might be particularly true of academics, and there are certainly exceptions to the rule, I still believe that Monsanto's scientists are generally honest, ethical people. I won't say the same for management, but if the data collectors are honest and ethical, then short and inexpensive trials are simply insufficient for any purpose, good or bad, and not deliberately dishonest. There is certainly no reason to assume a priori that they are designed to conceal harmful intent.

I'm sure it's also true that Monsanto's management sees little advantage in investing in a product or process and then seeing it proven unfit to market, so I agree with you that their self interest precludes objective self study. But I also believe that most of the folks in the labs are careful, ethical scientists, so I'm a whole lot less worried than most of the anti-GMO crowd. It helps to understand the technology-- although I don't do any molecular biology in my own work I have done it in the past, in lab rotations and in postgraduate work, so I'm not unreasonably fearful of genetic engineering.

I completely agree with you that Monsanto has done considerable harm, although I would also argue that others like petroleum companies have done far more harm, exponentially more, yet the anti-GMO crowd seems oddly silent about REAL social disinvestment in fossil fuels, to the extent that they have demanded bans on all things Monsanto, which would dramatically reduce everyone's quality of life.

I would not spare a single tear if Monsanto bites the dust-- I think its business practices are awful. Science illiteracy chaps my ass though, as does fearful ignorance masquerading as prudence or principles.

Whatever. bunnies Apr 2013 #1
that study was also bogus.... mike_c Apr 2013 #2
Its a "personal bias" to say that poison is poison? bunnies Apr 2013 #5
it is when the actual evidence doesn't support that bias.... mike_c Apr 2013 #8
Its only called that by monsanto representatives socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #9
What about Monsanto's own studies, Mike? appal_jack Apr 2013 #20
oh no, it's well understood that self study is about as objective... mike_c Apr 2013 #22
I agree that most scientists are good, ethical people. appal_jack Apr 2013 #23
Xenoestrogens are known to be toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #3
and yet folks doing bad science rely upon confirmation bias rather than... mike_c Apr 2013 #4
I'm not a chemist BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #6
The body produces the estrogens we need socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #10
You don't have to try to convince me xenoestrogens are horribly toxic BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #11
Just giving you more ammo for your arsenal to use against monsanto reps socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #12
More ammo is always good BethanyQuartz Apr 2013 #13
The wealthy can afford organic, free range food. socialsecurityisAAA Apr 2013 #19
No. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #15
K&R Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7
You have completely ignored the important part of that study. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #14
with all due respect... mike_c Apr 2013 #17
The academy protects its own shava May 2013 #24
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #25
long time listener first time caller shava May 2013 #27
We are glad you came aboard! hrmjustin May 2013 #28
for more discussion on this on my G+ shava May 2013 #29
this paper describes areas KT2000 Apr 2013 #16
Thanks, Mike. (And, TBH, I wish Mrs. Haspel could do a similar article on the AGW issue as well.) AverageJoe90 Apr 2013 #18
I don't like Monsanto's practices either, uriel1972 Apr 2013 #21
That is a reasonable Newest Reality May 2013 #26
I assume you have a plan to fund this then? shava May 2013 #30
I appreciate your Newest Reality May 2013 #31
When people respond to a news story, it's as though it weren't to a real situation shava May 2013 #32
Ok, then. Newest Reality May 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»condemning Monsanto with ...»Reply #22