General Discussion

Quixote1818

(28,936 posts) Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:33 PM Jul 2015

This Is Where The Opinions Of Scientists And The American Public Split

On evolution, genetically-modified foods, animal research, and global climate change, America’s scientists are almost all going one way—and the general public is going the other.

This graphic from the Pew Research Center looks at the gaps between opinions on scientific issues, by contrasting surveys first given to members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science back in January with surveys given to the general public.

There are some strong opinion gaps, but the most concerning areas are not just those where there’s a gap. They are the areas where a scientific consensus clearly exists—with scientist opinions trending firmly to the right—but where public opinion not only hasn’t caught up, it appears to be strongly divided.

Link: http://io9.com/this-is-where-the-opinions-of-scientists-and-the-americ-1715379476?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This Is Where The Opinions Of Scientists And The American Public Split (Original Post) Quixote1818 Jul 2015 OP

Pro GMO thread? I really would like to know what the most unbiased scientists randys1 Jul 2015 #1

You would be hard pressed to see that here. Puzzledtraveller Jul 2015 #2

Who are considered to be unbiased scientists on this topic? Surely there has to be randys1 Jul 2015 #3

Not sure I would characterize the article as pro-GMO as much as pro-Science. I disagree btw stevenleser Jul 2015 #4

Well isnt the article being used to promote GMO? Maybe not, but seems like that is randys1 Jul 2015 #5

That's not the way I read it. I read it as mentioning that particular stat because it was the stevenleser Jul 2015 #7

Scientists are more concerned with the possible impacts on the enviornment from GMO's than Quixote1818 Jul 2015 #8

And it says this randys1 Jul 2015 #9

All valid concerns and good points Quixote1818 Jul 2015 #13

To be fair LostOne4Ever Jul 2015 #6

From Wikipedia: bobclark86 Jul 2015 #10

So what is the reason Monsanto needs to do this? randys1 Jul 2015 #11

They're not... bobclark86 Jul 2015 #12

I know that, my question is why does Monsanto say they need to do GE foods? randys1 Jul 2015 #14

randys1

(16,286 posts)

1. Pro GMO thread? I really would like to know what the most unbiased scientists

Reply to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:35 PM

Jul 2015

think

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)

2. You would be hard pressed to see that here.

Reply to randys1 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:44 PM

Jul 2015

We are big pharma, big Agra, big Wall Street now. That is to say that we are told to just shut up and be good consumers and if you ask questions you will be publicly shamed and have a sign that says "anti-science" hung around your neck.

randys1

(16,286 posts)

3. Who are considered to be unbiased scientists on this topic? Surely there has to be

Reply to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:46 PM

Jul 2015

corp side saying X and another side saying Y

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

4. Not sure I would characterize the article as pro-GMO as much as pro-Science. I disagree btw

Reply to randys1 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:53 PM

Jul 2015

with the animal experimentation and nuclear power positions of the majority of Scientists.

randys1

(16,286 posts)

5. Well isnt the article being used to promote GMO? Maybe not, but seems like that is

Reply to stevenleser (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:54 PM

Jul 2015

the point of this, and I personally have no clue whether GMO is ok or not

would love to hear from scientists who have no financial link

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

7. That's not the way I read it. I read it as mentioning that particular stat because it was the

Reply to randys1 (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:59 PM

Jul 2015

biggest divergence.

Quixote1818

(28,936 posts)

8. Scientists are more concerned with the possible impacts on the enviornment from GMO's than

Reply to randys1 (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 05:01 PM

Jul 2015

the health effects from eating them: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VZWmCEZRHIU

randys1

(16,286 posts)

9. And it says this

Reply to Quixote1818 (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 05:03 PM

Jul 2015

While the risks of genetic engineering are often exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them.

At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use.

So why do we do them at all? Is it profit motive or can we produce more food this way?

If profit, then I say fuck that.

Quixote1818

(28,936 posts)

13. All valid concerns and good points

Reply to randys1 (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 05:16 PM

Jul 2015

I am lukewarm to GMO's but I also don't think they are nearly as bad as some make them out to be; currently that is. However, the longer this type of testing goes on the higher the probability of something really nasty getting into the environmental cycles. I agree that the profit motive is very worrisome and can cause unethical practices or risky chances. Hopefully the good scientists will try to stay on top of the things that can potentially cause big problems. Sooner or later there will be issues though so I am with you for the most part.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)

6. To be fair

Reply to randys1 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:59 PM

Jul 2015

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Creationist and climate change opponents probably have the exact same objection.

It is from the AAAS and is just stating what is widely known as the scientific consensus on GMO's being safe to eat.[/font]

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)

10. From Wikipedia:

Reply to randys1 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 2, 2015, 05:04 PM

Jul 2015

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an American international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members at the end of 2008, and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science, which has a weekly circulation of 138,549.

So... not just Monsanto employees.