Noted!

- I would have thought that a ''scientist'' would know better than to spout off on a subject with which s/he was not sufficiently qualified to make pronunciations upon regarding GMOs and limit his/her comments to his/her area of expertise. Which in his case, includes astrophysics but does not include GMOs nor the growing food for public consumption of any kind.





[center][/center]

expertise:

"Shockley argued that the higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley advocated that the scientific community should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence, and demographic trends, and suggest policy changes if he was proven right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

plus another scientist getting things wrong even when they were close to his field:

"Dr Watson, who flew into Britain to promote a new book, has also provoked uproar by saying the assumption that different racial groups shared “equal powers of reason” was backed by “no firm reason”. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566468/Nobel-scientist-snubbed-after-racism-claims.html

And what everyone also seems to forget is that we know very, very little about what those genes referred to a ''junk DNA'' actually do. It is possible they could turn on a switch that could kill us all.

- And all they'd be able to say is: ''Whoops, sorry.''

Wow, Tyson confuses selective breeding with the genetic roulette that ignores the interaction of genes in living organisms, and the significance of exotic proteins. He is apparently unaware of the current BT and glyphosate problems, as well.

And it's alarming how many people trust short term testing to clear something for long term use; if that was good enough, we'd still have lead pipes, lead in house-paint, and leaded gasoline; not to mention asbestos.

The David Suzuki narrated film is quite good, thank you!

His daughter Severn Cullis-Suzuki has spoken wonderfully on these issues for her generation as well (as she still does), when she spoke at the UN Earth Summit in 1992:

You just proved Tyson's point.

when the purpose of the genetic engineering is to add or tolerate pesticides, which unfortunately is the majority of the time.

- Just because you don't care about your body doesn't mean others should suffer too.

lump cross pollination and grafts with GMOs? Nobody put snail DNA in a wild apple to make a Red Delicious. Hybrid corn is not the same as Roundup Ready.

People were cross pollinating and grafting before they even knew what DNA was.

?list=PL282028C1FB11BA6Aa


And then listen to Rachael Maddow on the subject. We are dealing with a whole different subject than hybridizing seed, frankenfoods are called that for a reason.

CONVINCE me that it's safe. END OF STORY.

(If you are not able to watch the video, you can see it at MoveOn.org)
http://front.moveon.org/bill-maher-speaks-the-truth-about-genetically-modified-foods-slams-obama/#.U91wPCx0yM8

genes already present in a population is the same as inserting new genes. For example, say I start with a population of rabbits, some long haired and some short haired. I can choose to breed long haired rabbits to long haired rabbits until I can be fairly certain that that given line contains only the genes for long hair. That's somewhat different from inserting a gene to give my long haired rabbits green fur that glows in the dark!

He does not address the problem that when plants are designed manufacture Bt toxins, the target insect populations are more likely to develop resistance to those toxins. Nor does he address the question of our long term exposure to those toxins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize

He does not address the problem of keeping the new genes confined to particular plants, so we are already seeing Round up resistant weeds.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/GWC/GWC-1.pdf

He does not address the problem of modified animals getting loose and perhaps driving other animals to extinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon

He does not address the issue of mono cropping and its effect on the entire environment including the soil base. Somehow, the use of GMO techniques is considered "scientific", but organic techniques developed and evaluated using the scientific method are not. Technology is not the same ting as science.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap563e/ap563e.pdf

Most of all, he ignores the many times "science" has brought us something new and wonderful that turned out later not to be so wonderful. It took most of the 20th century to understand the hazards of exposure to radiation from various sources such as radium paint, X-ray machines, nuclear fallout, etc. As another example, consider the wildly varying advice on nutrition that scientists have given in the last 70 years. Reporters who went back to study the original research found out that the accepted advice to avoid cholesterol and fats had more basis in strong personalities than in actual experimental results!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html?_r=0



Understand, I am not recommending a return to the Bronze Age, but rather some humility and caution when using a new technology.We have found out over and over again that it is easier to let the genie out of the bottle than to put it back in! It makes sense to move ahead slowly and carefully.

Monsanto's horrible track record. This is a company that cannot be trusted. I'm watching the movie The World According to Monsanto right now and I had to take a break after twenty minutes. Its like a bad scifi movie about the a scary futuristic world.

And it only scratches the surface.

It's a particularly galling/misguided/hypocritical statement on Dr. Tyson's part given he spent an entire episode of his recent Cosmos series exposing and outlining the problem with and controversy surrounding lead paint/gasoline/etc..., the decades it took to discover and determine its toxic effects, and the still more ensuing years with high scientific authority and "consensus" and - even longer - industry denying the fact and trying to keep it on the market as long as possible.

Hey, how about we listen to someone who KNOWS what she's talking about:

But NDT would tell her to chill out!

Honestly, I've always had major reservations about this guy. He's just way too focused on his own celebrity, and now after these boneheaded remarks, I will seriously be avoiding him.

and there was something about him that was getting on my nerves. I think it was what you said about being "too focused on his own celebrity". Now his dismissive and condescending remarks about GMOs is a huge turnoff.

I'm not into such things.

Vandana Shiva, Bullshit Artist
http://www.twipscience.org/news/2014/8/5/q9h838x9mawvrq8fincfenghry209m

And I've seen a lot of them!

You just don't like reality.

She has been caught lying about GMOs almost every time she opens her mouth. Sheesh.

Clearly some of us are capable of making the distinction between "caught lying" and being accused of lying by industry shills. Your attack reeks of desperation.

You ought to be pissed at her for working so hard to con so many people.

Why aren't you? Why defend someone who has been caught lying so many times?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Vandana%20Shiva%20lies

You have merely established that she is routinely attacked by industry shills. Personally, I would wear that as a badge of honor.

You are not making yourself seem particularly credible here. The scattershot smears are just annoying.

You simply don't have the guts to challenge your beliefs. You don't care about what's real.

She has lied, and it has been proven, over and over again.

It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

[center]''In fact, over 2000 studies have found GM food to be perfectly safe.''[/center]

This is a LIE!

Thank you.

Because you come across as pretty close minded with severe tunnel vision. I do believe a lot of caution should be taken with GMO's with lots of testing but I also think a lot of good can be done with them. Evolution can occur in nature and in the lab, who is to say plants sprayed with roundup would not have naturally developed the same resistance as the GMO plants but over a longer period of time? Maybe even having the exact same chemical make up. If the mutation had happened naturally it's okay but when sped up by science it's not? Is that your reasoning? If so it's pretty faulty.


How many of those 1,700 studies have you actually read? You do realize they went through peer review don't you? Science can do good and bad, not just bad and there are a lot of dedicated scientists out there trying to save lives with GMO's who are having a hard time moving there work forward because the anti-GMO lobbying.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/09/06/scientific-american-comes-out-in-favor-of-gmos/

I would like to choose which foods with GMOs I buy and eat.
The answer is not STFU and trust us.

Is it so they are tastier? NO
Is it so they can make/tolerate high herbicides like RoundUp and 2,4-D? YES But Why? Weeding is expensive and poisons are much cheaper.
How about this 2,000 studies finding GMOs "perfectly safe"? Are they paid for by Monsanto et al? Well, yes.
How about the time the lab rats are re-checked? Oh, the time period is short. Follow ups? NO
You see Cancer and other terrible diseases attack is usually found in longer periods than 30 or 90 days.
So, why would Neil defend GMOs? No comment, but it should be noted that GMOs aren't his field, or even close to SPACE TRAVEL, ETC.
Neil, I'm very disappointed in this...but you can fix it. So, do the right thing and check out the facts, then speak.

Last edited Sat Aug 2, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

1. Science should not be confused with technology. Science is a method of studying the universe, a question is raised, a method of testing that question is developed and then a test is made to determine the answer. If the question can be reduced to one variable, the answer can be found fairly simply. If not, further testing is required. A second step is to repeat the test to ensure that the results are accurate. But - experiments at best only answer the specific question asked.

2.Technology is based on the application of scientific results. Thus, while scientific findings enable us to insert genes into living organisms, they have nothing to say about whether or not that is a good idea.

3. Experience has shown that interfering with the environment often has unintended consequences. For example, after WWII, the use of DDT saved thousands of lives. It was safe to use around humans. However, no one had asked whether DDT would interfere with avian reproduction. If we are failing to ask the right questions about GMOs, we may find out too late that releasing them into the environment was a very, very bad idea.

that Neil deGrasse Tyson can travel back in time (his expertise) and retract or modify his statements. I really hope he isn't applying for a position at the Heritage Foundation as their astrophysicist. However, large chunks of change have been known to corrupt the incorruptible.

Thanks for the post and all the responses!

Thank you, NDT!

and wrong.

The typical anti-GMO leader on the other hand.... well, not so knowledgeable about science.