Michael Taylor at the FDA?!

[Earth_First]

Seriously?!

Monsanto now has one of their own at the FDA...

:sigh:

[DebbieCDC]

1. Another example of that change we were promised

We thought we'd be getting the crooks and lobbyists and corporatists OUT of government

Instead the door was opened wider to them to come in

Yeah, change, right.

[Earth_First]

2. I've got to say...

I've really kept an open mind about the WH up until now.

This one really has me feeling exactly that:

"Yeah, change, right."

[stopbush]

3. And Francis Collins heading up the NIH.

It's fucked up.

[Earth_First]

4. Stranger than fiction, my friend... n/t

[sandnsea]

12. The human genome dude?

Who rejects creationism and ID?

People have got to stop being reactionaries. He's one of the good guys.

[stopbush]

25. He rejects ID but he is a creationist. Visit his website to learn the awful truth.

[sandnsea]

27. No he is not

He believes in God and the possibility that evolution was part of God's plan, but that doesn't mean he's anti-science.

[stopbush]

28. From Francis Collins' website:

Collins calls his brand of creationism "BioLogos." Here:

"BioLogos is most similar to Theistic Evolution. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, which is the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of physics. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life. Because the term evolution is sometimes associated with atheism, a better term for the belief in a God who chose to create the world by way of evolution is BioLogos. BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the gospel of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

"BioLogos and ID agree the Earth and the universe were created."

http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism /

Creationism, pure and simple.

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — Source, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Belief in the Big Bang does not need god as a creator or what is called a first cause. Believing that everything must have a creator means that the creator himself must have a creator as well, and on we go into an infinite regression.

If you believe there was a creator, then you are a creationist. Period.

Dr. Francis Collins is an unapologetic creationist. Period.

[sandnsea]

29. That is not creationism

The man does not believe Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from Adam's rib.

He does not even believe evolution is designed, step by step, with "God" overseeing the process.

He simply believes that there is a "higher power" involved at some point. That's it.

Just like 90+% of the population on the planet.

[stopbush]

31. First off, 90% of the planet believing something doesn't make it true.

Second, his own words at his own website attest to the fact that he is a creationist. How do you not get the clear meaning of the man's own words?

Look, it's simple: if you believe some entity created things, you are a creationist. If you believe there was no intelligent agent behind the beginning of the universe, then you don't believe in a creator. Collins believes that god created the universe. he believes in a creator. Ergo, he is a creationist.

[stopbush]

32. Here's 2 simple questions for the theistic evolutionists to answer,

courtesy of PZ Myers

1. What specific fundamental principles of your religion do you actually use in your science? I don't mean just general ethical principles, because atheists also have those, but tell me something specific about how you apply your religion to science?

2. Do you apply scientific principles to your religion, and do you do so consistently? Do you, for instance, test religious claims with experiment?

[sandnsea]

33. What's the difference? Who cares?

As long as a rational human being understands the difference between science and religion, and Collins clearly does, then what the hell difference does it make to you how he came to his beliefs?

I am agnostic and can't understand why people can't differentiate dangerous religious nutballs from run of the mill believers. Do you understand that there is something wrong with YOUR application of reason if you can't?

[stopbush]

34. Collins makes a special case for religious belief that he does not make for science

and the real world. And, BTW, that special case is reserved only for Christianity, not for any other religions.

He compartmentalizes, as can be seen in this clip from Bill Maher's movie, Religulous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWYpdCpF6M

Collins doesn't apply the same standard of proof for religious beliefs as he does to science, yet he accepts and promotes his (ie: Xianity's) religious beliefs as existing on the same plane as proven scientific fact. Applying that standard, why not believe that the moon is made of green cheese?

The question comes down to this: what do you consider to be "rational" thought in a human being? We all know what your standard for rationality is, as you wrote this:

"As long as a rational human being understands the difference between science and religion, then what the hell difference does it make to you how he came to his beliefs?"

OK, let's apply your standard for what is to be considered rational thought - how about this one:
"As long as a rational human being understands the difference between science and believing that fairies exist, then what the hell difference does it make to you how he came to his belief that fairies exist?"

How about this one:
"As long as a rational human being understands the difference between science and believing that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then what the hell difference does it make to you how he came to his belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?"

Or, how about this one:
"As long as a rational human being understands the difference between science and believing in astrology, then what the hell difference does it make to you how he came to his belief in astrology?"

I guess rationality is all in the eye of the beholder.

BTW - who is more "dangerous" in advancing the myths of religion and promoting them as if they were fact? A religious nutjob like John Hagee, or a respected scientist like Francis Collins, who has been put in the position of being the public face of the Human Genome Project and now, the NIH? Of the two, which person actually has a better chance of advancing their religious beliefs as if they were factual to the general public? Which one is the more dangerous in this respect?

Once one gets outside the realm of religious nutjobs who use their religion to advance violence and terrorism, it's the so-called moderates who are actually much more dangerous, because their very moderation cloaks the same suspension of reality and zealotry in their beliefs that girds the beliefs of the religious nutjob.

[sandnsea]

35. I don't care if he believes fairies exist

As long as he doesn't believe they're going to cure cancer. When all of the doctors and nurses in the world sit back and let people die because fairies are going to cure them, get back to me. It's a ridiculous argument to say a person can't have faith and be scientific at the same time.

[stopbush]

36. If you insist on having your own definitions for words like "creationist," it's going to be

impossible to have a rational conversation, isn't it? I'm fine with the dictionary definition of the word. Why aren't you?

In the case of Francis Collins, he believes in miracles. He believes that god exists outside of time and place, and that as the creator of the laws of physics, god has the power to suspend the laws of physics whenever he wishes to accomplish miracles. That's a belief that is entirely consistent with believing in god and believing god created everything. it's also a belief that flies in the face of science.

By simple extension of this basic religious idea, one would have to allow for (if not embrace) a belief that there are fairies and that they can cure cancer, because if you allow that god can suspend the laws of physics, then the same god could also create fairies and endow them with cancer-curing powers.

If you as a religionist elect to draw a line that puts belief in cancer-curing fairies in the realm of silliness and fantasy while holding that god can and does suspend natural laws, then you are assuming for yourself the ability to determine what a god can and cannot do, and what is believable and what is fantastic.

On the other hand, if you elect to employ dispassionate scientific method and fact as the arbiter, well, then you can look at things objectively and elect to run your life based on reality, rather than opinion and fantasy.

BTW - the paucity of the belief in god producing miracles and cancer-curing fairies lies in the fact that so few religionists have the conviction of their beliefs to act on such beliefs, preferring to go with the scientific/secular facts to cure their own illnesses, rather than depending on the promises of Jesus and other gods to heal them and watch over them.

If there are no atheists in foxholes, then there are no true believers in surgery.

[sandnsea]

37. No, you are misinterpreting words

Creationist - as it pertains to religious fundamentalists who reject science - does not refer to everybody who believes in God as a creator. Just doesn't. There are a variety of means that various people believe in, including Native American creation stories. They aren't all the same and every rational person with the teensiest bit of education knows it. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Fairies, god, the belief in the suspense of natural law - none of it should direct the study and application of science. No director of health should advocate replacing medicine with prayer. Collins does not say that it should. He is not a creationist nutball and in fact, tries to get them to understand that evolution is a fact that can't be denied.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=549

A surgeon knows that there is absolutely nothing they can personally do to make an incision heal. The body does it. Period. And many surgeons do pray for a steady hand, clear mind, and the full healing power of the patient their cutting into.

[stopbush]

38. There you go again, providing your own definition of what a creationist is

to support your argument. it doesn't wash. I provided the dictionary definition. It's absolutely clear, and it has none of the exceptions to the definition you're attempting to provide.

FYI, Francis Collins is anything but a religious fundamentalist. He has made the quite clear in his writings. He rejects Biblical literalism. This is well known. Your floating the red herring of fundamentalism appears to be an attempt to set up a straw man in regards to Collins. You're trying to narrow the definition of creationist to allow Collins to sit outside of the definition. You need not be a fundamentalist to be a creationist.

It's simple - you either believe a creator was involved in the birthing of the universe, or you don't. It's like pregnant, you are or you aren't. Does Francis Collins believe that god was not involved in the birthing of the universe? No. He believes god was involved. He believes god came up with evolution and set it in motion to create life on earth. By definition, he's a creationist.

You just don't like the pejorative associations with the word, so you're trying to provide an out for Collins.

Why are you so hung up on this?

[sandnsea]

39. Your post #25, you said he is a creationist

Now you say he's not a religious fundamentalist.

Creationism is a very specific set of beliefs.

http://www.creationism.org/index.htm

You're wrong, you've been proven wrong, and you can't admit it. Has nothing to do with providing an out for Collins because he doesn't need one. You do.

[stopbush]

41. Yes, and here's the dictionary definition of those specific beliefs:

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — Source, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

That's exactly what Collins believes. It requires no more specificity than the definition above.

What's so hard about getting that?

[stopbush]

42. PZ Myers on Francis Collins:

Collins gets panned almost everywhere


I've been wrestling with how to respond to the imminent appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, and it's tough. The problem is that he has excellent qualifications for the position of chief paper-pusher and technician-wrangler, but that his position on religion is just plain weird. He's a lovable dufus with great organizational skills whose grasp of the principles of science is superficial. But you can't just reject the guy because he's religious — we're in big trouble when we start using a religious litmus test for high political positions.

Oh, wait…we already do that. You know if someone with equivalent prestige and administrative credentials was even half as vocal about atheism as Collins is about Christianity, there's no way she would even be considered for this appointment.

Anyway, I was on The World Tonight Redux with Rob Breakenridge, a radio program out of Canada to talk about these issues the other night, and I listed a few reasons why Collins was a poor choice.

He's a big-science guy, who headed the National Human Genome Research Institute. I have some concern that he has a mindset that may not promote the diversity of scientific research — he represents a very narrow, gene-jockey style of research, which is valuable and does churn out lots of data, but I've often found exhibits a worrisome lack of understanding of the big picture of biology. I'd have liked to have seen a leader with more breadth: someone with an appreciation of systems biology, or environmental biology, and a little less shackled to the purely biomedical side.

He doesn't understand evolution. He has said that he thinks humans are no longer evolving, that junk DNA is functional, and he can't understand how altruism could have evolved. RPM summarized these deficiencies well. I know he argues well against the specifics of intelligent design, but ultimately, he's following the same gods-of-the-gaps formula that the Discovery Institute does, as this article on Slate explains:

This formula offers a convenient litmus test for where Collins falls on a variety of questions: If a given problem appears to be merely unsolved, then he'll leave it to the realm of science; if, on the other hand, Collins deems a question to be unsolvable, it's fair game for inclusion in a spiritual interpretation of the universe.

That's not what I want to hear from someone with such a visible position in science.

His website, Biologos, is an embarrassment of poor reasoning and silly christian apologetics. It's awful. His logic is a joke, and all it really shows is that Collins is a man blinded by faith to the absurdities of his convictions. That he even asks "At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the 'Image of God'?", or "Was there death before the Fall?", among many other similar absurdities, is a revelation. These are questions that don't even have any meaning outside the scope of a specific, very narrow religious view.

It's also another difficult issue for me. I'm the last guy who's going to say someone should be denied a position because he maintains a controversial website. However, it's not the controversy that annoys me (it's also not particularly controversial among the American mainstream — it's more like a site that panders to a religious bias), it's the stupidity.

This is a big one for me: he will use his position to act as a propagandist for Christianity, entirely inappropriately. We already saw this in the announcement of the completion of the draft of the human genome project, where he actually brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in his speech, and where he himself made claims about the DNA sequence being "the language of god". The head of the NIH isn't just an administrative position; it's a political position, and the appointment of a loudly evangelical Christian to that spot is sending a political message. There are enough of us even louder atheists out here who will make a stink over any attempt on his part to use the accomplishments of science under the NIH to proselytize, that he's going to have to be very cautious in his statements from now on.

Finally, my objections rest on an important word: integrity. Collins hasn't got it.

I don't mean integrity in the sense of being honest and having strong moral principles; I think Collins is entirely sincere, and he doesn't seem to be the type to have ever crossed any lines of ethical behavior, except perhaps in his taste in music.

I mean integrity as in the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction. He's a jumble of intellectual contradictions, and when you read any of his interviews, he comes off as an amiable lightweight. I'd rather have someone who can think like a scientist in charge than yet another Jebusite with an evangelical agenda.

Jerry Coyne, Steve Pinker, and Eric Michael Johnson all have interesting things to say on this subject. I have no hope that any of this will make a difference, however; Collins will obligingly appeal to the superstitions of congress and sail through any confirmation. I had higher hopes for Obama, but at this point, I can only despair of the kind of president who would consult the Pope on bioethics. I'm beginning to feel he will not hesitate to sacrifice reason on the altar of religious conformity.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

[sandnsea]

5. More Clinton era pols

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-Michael-Taylor-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090308-575.html

[snappyturtle]

6. Excellent article! Thank you. I filled in the appropriate boxes to

oppose HR 875 and Michael Taylor.

[MGKrebs]

7. OK, can someone HERE tell me what the problem is?

I've been looking and I can't find much wrong except that he worked for Monsanto for a couple of years (10 years ago).

Other than that, he seems to be pretty good:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/blogs/healthy-food/michael-taylor-fda-50070809

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Woo woo.

Some people think that genetically engineered food is a vast satanic conspiracy to sap their precious bodily fluids.

Monsanto is the world's leading corporation in GE food.

Ergo, Obama appointing a man who's worked for the government for decades, then spent a couple of years working for Monsanto, means he's in league with vague, but clearly evil, forces.

Combine that with anti-corporation sentiment. Anti-Obama sentiment from various sources. And you've got the poutrage of the day.

[MGKrebs]

9. Thank you. The first helpful info I've seen on this.

But I thought he was really only involved with the Bovine Growth Hormone thing?

I'll keep looking around.

[sandnsea]

10. I think it's more the bovine growth hormone

in milk that has people in a tizz.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Same difference.

It's still GE.

It's still scientific illiteracy.

[sandnsea]

16. Not an organic fan? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Indifferent. It's not like it has to be either one or the other.

But I can't abide woo.

[appal_jack]

17. like extra pus in your milk, Pron?

Don't confuse science with technocracy and corporatism. Science is a system of knowledge and structured discovery that relies upon hypotheses and experiments to yield replicable data, leading to verifiable facts.

Whenever rBGH has been subjected to true scientific inquiry, it has been shown that (1) cows live shorter, less-healthy lives; (2) the cows' milk has elevated levels of white blood cells, pus, insulin growth factor hormones, and other compounds that are NOT good for us; and (3) smaller and more conscientious farmers go out of business (yes, this last fact relies upon some social science, but it is science nonetheless).

In short, rBGH has helped Monsanto and (to a lesser extent) big dairy processors, while harming the land, farmers, and animals. And to achieve this, Monsanto falsified some of the data it submitted to the FDA for rBGH approval, and has busily sued anyone who has even suggested that their synthetic hormone might not be a good idea (much less labeling their milk rBGH free - oh the horrors!!11!!!11!)

And here you are ridiculing the people who dare to suggest that maybe Monsanto officials should not be at the levers of our government (technocracy) elevating the desires of Monsanto over verifiable facts (corporatism). Great, just great. I'm really feeling the solidarity and progress here...:sarcasm:

-app

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. I like the normal amount of pus in milk.

rBGH milk, organic milk, it's all got pus.

And it's all indistinguishable from each other.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

21. You disavow "woo", but really exhibit

ignorance when you describe the two as "indistinguishable" .

Kind of makes me not too inclined to believe any of your positions, oh great arbiter of the scientific method.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Glass of organic milk is on a table, glass of milk from cow given rBGH is on a table.

There is no scientific way to distinguish one glass from the other.

[appal_jack]

30. I'll bet you $500

I'll bet you $500 that I can tell organic milk from rBGH milk using taste and sight.

Here are my conditions:
-The organic milk must come from a farm that is primarily (>75%) grass-based in its feeding (grain-fed confinement organic dairy is an oxymoron).
-The two milks can be pasteurized and packaged using the same methods.

Cash is on the table any time you'd like to take this up.

To say that the two milks are indistinguishable is the height of ignorance. Differences can be measured in levels of insulin growth factor (bad) and conjugated linoleic acids (good), plus probably a host of other chemical analyses. But like I said, I can easily tell them apart by taste and sight.

And I'll back that bet up any time you care to take me up on it...

-app

[sandnsea]

13. Thanks

Lots of good info there. I will read some more.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. Taylor is the bottom of the barrel

Taylor is a former attorney for Monsanto who then went to work for the Food and Drug Administration, where he helped draft the FDA's policy declaring that genetically modified foods are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). While at the FDA, Taylor also wrote the policy that exempted biotech foods from labeling. His former law firm, which still represented Monsanto, then began suing dairies that labeled their milk rBGH-free (Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone to increase milk production). After these policies were written, Taylor left the FDA and eventually went back to work for Monsanto.

Got revolving door?

[flyarm]

22. DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

do read this..........

http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey125.htm

By Jeffrey Smith
May 30, 2009

NewsWithViews.com

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”<1> They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Someone once asked Tom Lehrer why he stopped performing

and he said that irony became obsolete when Kissinger won the peace prize.

I can only think of the legacy of James Watt, and wonder if this kind of thing is why Obama takes far too many opportunities to praise one of the sterling assholes of recent years, Ronald Reagan.

[johnaries]

20. You're late.

we've already been through this. his worse critic admits he was the right choice.

this horse is dead. stop beating it.

[flyarm]

23. maybe for you but i think it sucks big time! eom

[Hannah Bell]

26. wtf? i think you're the one who said taylor wasn't even being *considered* on a thread on this

topic a few days ago.

no cred.

[rollingrock]

40. Geithner, Summers, Vilsack to Agriculture, Taylor to the FDA

I don't think John McCain and Sarah Palin could have been happier with these picks if they were the ones making them. What's the real difference between Bush and Obama anymore besides their relative ability to string a sentence together?

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.