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

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:36 PM Jul 2016

Nobel Award Winners ask Greenpeace to stand on scientific consensus, instead of against it

A letter signed by over 100 scholars attempts to get Greenpeace to re-think opposition to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).
https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci

So, in the past, what has Greenpeace thought about the opinions of Nobel laureates? Hmm....

(A Greenpeace tweet):

When #Nobel laureates say humans need to live more sustainably, we should probably listen, shouldn’t we? http://grnpc.org/IgHcH


So Greenpeace in the past celebrated Peter Doherty, Brian Schmidt, Ada Yonath and asked us to hear them....Hmm. Ok, so the Nobelists didn't ruin treasured historical sites, and they didn't climb Greenpeace's headquarters. But they seem to have been heard (by the world, if not by Greenpeace). I wanted to keep a running list of the pieces about this story.

...

This Reuters piece at CBC is one of my favorites. From the piece: "Greenpeace officials called the event a publicity stunt." Yeah, Greenpeace is so opposed to publicity stunts. My ass. I was noticing that none of the coverage had the bogus syringe-tomato images, but many of them used photos of past Greenpeace publicity stunts--because there are so many to choose from.

..."

---------------------------------------------


Greenpeace jumped the shark years ago. Will those who remain work to right this ship, finally?

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nobel Award Winners ask Greenpeace to stand on scientific consensus, instead of against it (Original Post) HuckleB Jul 2016 OP
GMO foods are unfashionable on the far left comradebillyboy Jul 2016 #1
Amen Scruffy1 Jul 2016 #2
Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises kristopher Jul 2016 #7
Even if that is true, it does not exonerate Greenpeace's unethical actions. HuckleB Jul 2016 #23
Hey now. proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #3
That organic industry propaganda is not remotely accurate. HuckleB Jul 2016 #4
More. proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #5
An Organic industry Gish Gallop does not change reality. HuckleB Jul 2016 #6
That poster is an anti-vaxxer as well. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #10
Hardly, although you said that about me on a thread yesterday and on another the day before that. proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #11
You mean your anti-vax post from a TV quack that a jury hid? Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #13
No, I am not "being quite disgusting." It is regrettable that you or anyone might feel that way. proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #14
The content of your constant spam posts promoting debunked views is very disgusting. HuckleB Jul 2016 #17
I usually don't look to dentists when I want to talk about autism. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #20
I POST SOLIDLY VETTED INFORMATION ONLY, not opinion. Disregard or explore, as you wish. nt proverbialwisdom Jul 2016 #21
No, you don't. HuckleB Jul 2016 #22
No, you do not. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #24
Your history is well known. HuckleB Jul 2016 #15
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops[ kristopher Jul 2016 #8
A cherry picked opinion piece by someone not even in the field is your defense of the indefensible. HuckleB Jul 2016 #16
It's peer reviewed work by a highly regarded anthropologist working on this specific problem. kristopher Jul 2016 #18
Just because it's in a journal, doesn't mean what you think it means. HuckleB Jul 2016 #19
Why do you want to harm the planet? HuckleB Jul 2016 #25
The mouthbreathers are just gonna try to say that the Nobel laureates are Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #9
And that's just what they did. HuckleB Jul 2016 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author Judi Lynn Jul 2016 #12
science always gets co-opted for commercial greed.. lostnfound Jul 2016 #26
Pushing anti-GMO fictions is not fine. HuckleB Jul 2016 #27
When I was in 3rd grade, GMOs beat up my friend & stole his lunch money Orrex Jul 2016 #28
GMOs cancelled Firefly. Nt Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2016 #30
Ask yourself why this happens. HuckleB Jul 2016 #31

Scruffy1

(3,256 posts)
2. Amen
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 01:34 PM
Jul 2016

I hear nonsense from them every day. Most of the younger generation has little scientific knowledge. My personal objection to gmo's is that the grower's are pretty much locked in to the corporations that make them and the field is not very competitive.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 03:14 PM
Jul 2016
Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises
GMO activists not to blame for scientific challenges slowing introduction, study finds

By Gerry Everding June 2, 2016



Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates, suggests a new study from Washington University in St. Louis.

“Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem,” said lead author Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies in Arts & Sciences. (Emphasis added - k)



Golden Rice on Time cover
Proclaimed as a potential life saver 16 years ago on the cover of Time, Golden Rice may still be years away from approval.


...GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.

In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises.


Washington University anthropologist Glenn Stone, shown here with an agricultural field agent, has studied rice cultivation and research in the Philippines since 2013. (Photo: Glenn Stone)


“The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done,” Stone said. “It has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI).”

....

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
3. Hey now.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jul 2016
http://gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17077-pro-gmo-campaign-exploits-nobel-laureates-to-attack-greenpeace-and-fool-the-people

Pro-GMO campaign exploits Nobel laureates to attack Greenpeace and fool the people
June 30, 2016


[center]Greenpeace is being criticized for blocking GMO golden rice – even though the crop is years away from being ready, reports Claire Robinson[/center]
...The letter calls upon Greenpeace “to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general, and upon governments “to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.”

The letter ends with an impassioned rhetorical question: “How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a ‘crime against humanity’?”

The problem with this picture is that the “emotion and dogma” in this case do not belong to Greenpeace but to those who claim or imply that GM golden rice is ready to deploy and that only anti-GMO activists are holding it back.

That’s because in reality, as Prof Glenn Davis Stone pointed out in a peer-reviewed study co-authored with development expert Dominic Glover, GM golden rice still isn’t ready and there’s no evidence that activists are to blame for the delay.

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1

<>

As Greenpeace stated in its response to the campaign:

“Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.”

Authority over expertise

The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out. Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: “1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors”. He added that science is “about evidence not authority. What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be ‘show me’, not ‘trust me’… Nobel prize or not.”

Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”

The lack of expertise among the letter signatories contrasts markedly with that of the man whose work the new propaganda campaign seems to be attempting to discredit. Glenn Davis Stone – who has never opposed GM golden rice – is an expert on crop use and technology change among poor farmers, including rice farmers in the Philippines, the country targeted for the golden rice rollout – if it ever happens. He has been following the evidence on the progress of golden rice for years and has published extensively on the topic.

In other words, unlike the laureates, he knows what he’s talking about.

Who is behind the letter?

The new propaganda campaign is said to have been organized by Sir Richard J. Roberts. Roberts is a Nobel Laureate in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns, and chief scientific officer for New England Biolabs. According to their website, New England Biolabs are “a collective of scientists committed to developing innovative products for the life sciences industry… a recognized world leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of recombinant and native enzymes for genomic research.”

<>

Update 1 July 2016: A GMWatch reader has pointed out to us that the second organizer of the laureates’ letter alongside Richard J. Roberts is Phillip A. Sharp, who works at the David H. Koch Institute at MIT.

An article for the website Science Alert about the “107 laureates” publicity stunt describes Sharp only as “the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology”.

What the article fails to mention is that Sharp is a biotech entrepreneur with interests in GMO research. In 1978 he co-founded the biotechnology and pharmaceutical company Biogen and in 2002 he co-founded Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which uses RNAi gene silencing genetic engineering technologies to manufacture therapeutics.

To be clear, GMWatch does not oppose the use of genetic technologies in contained use situations, such as medicine, as long as there is informed consent by the patient to the therapy and no risk to non-target populations and the environment. However, Sharp’s interests in biotech companies should be disclosed in any GMO advocacy exercises he engages in, just as they would be if he were to publish a paper on GMO technologies in any reputable scientific journal.

<>

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
4. That organic industry propaganda is not remotely accurate.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 02:31 PM
Jul 2016

Go through all the links in the link at the OP, and get the full story, not the organic industry BS one.

Here's more: https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/01/the-nobel-savage-greenpeaces-colonialist-ambitions/

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
5. More.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jul 2016
https://twitter.com/philipbstark/status/748470213297975296

Philip Stark @philipbstark
3:56 AM - 30 Jun 2016

1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors. Perhaps

Philip Stark ?@philipbstark Jun 30
And 1 prize for Literature.

Bioscience Resource ?@BioSRP Jul 1
+ one who is dead: see http://bit.ly/298ntcb for the real orchestrators

cornelsinduna ?@cornelsinduna Jun 30
Even Nobel prizewinners make mistakes, Not one Plant Geneticist in their midst.


https://twitter.com/philipbstark/status/749604850766323712

Philip Stark ?@philipbstark
4h4 hours ago

Time-honored technique to establish scientific fact: shout the opposition down, ostracize, bully. Evidence optional.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/749602898355585024
NassimNicholasTaleb Verified account
?@nntaleb

Same Monsanto's PR firm as the 107 Nobels send>1500 emails to NYU pathologizing my GMO stance

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
6. An Organic industry Gish Gallop does not change reality.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 02:33 PM
Jul 2016

You owe us all a bit apology. You know that your links are nothing but corporate industry trying to cover its arse.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
11. Hardly, although you said that about me on a thread yesterday and on another the day before that.
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 08:58 PM
Jul 2016

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:59 AM - Edit history (3)

I'm with THEM, basically, among many others I could name:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/17/peds.2015-4230

Pediatrics
March 2016, VOLUME 137 / ISSUE 3

Childhood Vaccine Exemption Policy: The Case for a Less Restrictive Alternative
Douglas J. Opel, Matthew P. Kronman, Douglas S. Diekema, Edgar K. Marcuse, Jeffrey S. Duchin, Eric Kodish


Abbreviations: MV — measles vaccine, NME — nonmedical exemption, VPD — vaccine-preventable disease

Efforts to restrict parents’ ability to exempt children from receiving vaccinations required for school entry have recently reached a pinnacle. The American Medical Association voiced support for eliminating nonmedical exemptions (NMEs) from school vaccine requirements,1 and California enacted legislation doing so.2 Although laudable in their objective, policies eliminating NMEs from all vaccines are scientifically and ethically problematic. In the present article, we argue for an exemption policy that eliminates NMEs just for the measles vaccine (MV) and is pursued only after other less restrictive approaches have been implemented and deemed unsuccessful.

Published By American Academy of Pediatrics
Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Author Information: Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPHa,b, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, MSCEb, Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPHa,b,c, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD, MPHb, Jeffrey S. Duchin, MDd,e,f, and Eric Kodish, MDg

aTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, and
bDepartments of Pediatrics and
dMedicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington;
cDepartments of Health Services and
eEpidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington;
fCommunicable Disease Epidemiology and Immunization Section, Public Health–Seattle and King County, Seattle, Washington; and
gDepartment of Bioethics, Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

Dr Opel conceptualized and designed the study and drafted the initial manuscript; and Drs Kronman, Diekema, Marcuse, Duchin, and Kodish reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

OFF-TOPIC, incidentally.
 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
13. You mean your anti-vax post from a TV quack that a jury hid?
Mon Jul 4, 2016, 09:11 AM
Jul 2016

Yeah. You post TONS of anti-vax quackery on here. To those of us with children on the spectrum (or on the spectrum ourselves), you are being quite disgusting.

Vaccines should be mandatory unless there is a medical reason not to vaccinate. People who chose not to vaccinate their children are dangerous, uneducated idiots. Anyone promoting them is just as idiotic and dangerous.

Vaccines do NOT cause autism, not matter how much you want that to be true, it's not.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
14. No, I am not "being quite disgusting." It is regrettable that you or anyone might feel that way.
Mon Jul 4, 2016, 01:26 PM
Jul 2016
And it totally misses the point, unless that's the point?

ASIDE: Incidentally, my training as a dentist occurred in an era when autism was considered 1:10,000 and during my post-doc training as a pediatric dentist when I was awarded the Fellowship for Special Needs Dentistry for Children, the focus then was on treatment of children with cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Hep B/HIV, special medical conditions (cancer, hereditary syndromes, other). Was autism even mentioned in my 2-year pediatric dentistry program? NO, it was not. Am I "being quite disgusting" to contribute on this topic with my background? NO, IMO, NOT AT ALL.

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
17. The content of your constant spam posts promoting debunked views is very disgusting.
Mon Jul 4, 2016, 04:40 PM
Jul 2016

You will, of course, pretend otherwise, but that doesn't change the reality.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
20. I usually don't look to dentists when I want to talk about autism.
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 10:48 AM
Jul 2016

Just as I wouldn't talk to a psychologist about getting a filling put in.

You are unqualified to be any sort of authority on this subject, and you do nothing but promote debunked sources and other quakery, especially age of autism.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
24. No, you do not.
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:30 PM
Jul 2016

You often post from Age of Autism, which is an anti-vax quack site. You also tend to post debunked papers and information in regards to vaccines or autism, then claim you are not anti-vax.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops[
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jul 2016

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:381–400
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 21, 2010
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/10/1021-0381$20.00

The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone
Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130;

Abstract
By late in the twentieth century, scientists had succeeded in manipulating organisms at the genetic level, mainly by gene transfer. The major impact of this technology has been seen in the spread of geneti- cally modified (GM) crops, which has occurred with little controversy in some areas and with fierce controversy elsewhere. GM crops raise a very wide range of questions, and I address three areas of particular interest for anthropology and its allied fields. First are the political- economic aspects of GM, which include patenting of life forms and new relationships among agriculture, industry, and the academy. Sec- ond is the wide diversity in response and resistance to the technology. Third is the much-debated question of GM crops for the developing world. This analysis is approached first by determining what controls research agendas and then by evaluating actual impacts of crops to date.


http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone-annualreview-2010.pdf

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
16. A cherry picked opinion piece by someone not even in the field is your defense of the indefensible.
Mon Jul 4, 2016, 02:22 PM
Jul 2016

Think, for once.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
18. It's peer reviewed work by a highly regarded anthropologist working on this specific problem.
Mon Jul 4, 2016, 08:58 PM
Jul 2016

It's long been obvious you have no grasp of what is involved in the area of ethics and science. This latest comment is absolute confirmation.

HuckleB A cherry picked opinion piece by someone not even in the field is your defense of the indefensible.
Think, for once.


See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=162621

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
19. Just because it's in a journal, doesn't mean what you think it means.
Tue Jul 5, 2016, 04:13 AM
Jul 2016

It's an opinion piece. The fact that you don't even understand that shows all anyone needs to know about the ludicrous defenses you have put up about this matter.

Greenpeace has acted in an inhuman, anti-science manner, over and over again, and you think that's just fine.

We get it. Now, stop pretending that you have anything to offer but cherry picked opinions. You can't even find actual, cherry picked research.

LOL!!!

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
9. The mouthbreathers are just gonna try to say that the Nobel laureates are
Sun Jul 3, 2016, 04:47 PM
Jul 2016

really just shills for Monsanto.

The shill gambit, it's ALL they've got.

Response to HuckleB (Original post)

lostnfound

(16,189 posts)
26. science always gets co-opted for commercial greed..
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 10:02 AM
Jul 2016

The basic concept of GM crops, fine
Using them as a way to monopolize agriculture throughout the world, inject "suicide" genes to prevent seed-saving, encourage increased use of your company's herbicides ("round-up ready corn&quot , harassing small farmers who have no defense against seeds blown off trucks on highway into paying royalty fees? Not fine.

Science drops a lovely idea into the river of life, and greedhead Machiavellians turn it into Frankenstein.

Orrex

(63,224 posts)
28. When I was in 3rd grade, GMOs beat up my friend & stole his lunch money
Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:19 AM
Jul 2016

They're evil, is what I'm saying.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Nobel Award Winners ask G...