Cornell Report - Industry Response

[Chris J. Durden]

Good point! Let's make sure question, hypothesis and theory are not
confused. Seems to me the Bt-toxin pollen question is just that. The flap
it generates suggests that it is a question well worth asking. A lot of
research, especially field sampling is needed before we can talk about
hypotheses. I hope someone is interested in paying someone to do this work.
Personally I think those upsetting the status quo (ie: the bio-ag
commercial interests) should be required to pay for this research.
.........Chris Durden


At 07:46  26/05/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Neil Jones wrote:
>
>
>This is not the first time that Mr. Paul Cherubini has come up with the
>idea that scientists are conspiring to misrepresent science for
>personal financial gain.
>
>----------------
>
>C'mon Neil, this is hardly a far-fetched idea.  I don't know anything about
>a conspiracy theory, but the consideration that scientists sometimes mislead
>the public or misrepresent facts (knowingly or otherwise) in order to
>justify their own theories (and retain financial subsistence) is hardly
>delusional.  Hey, we all agree - science is good.  But not all science is
>good science, and clearly many motivations exist that lend themselves to bad
>science (need for publication, peer acceptance, tenure, field trip finances,
>etc.).
>
>But that isn't the only concern here, IMO.  There's also the rapid,
>ignorant, and non-discriminatory buy-in of all science by the general public
>(educated or otherwise).  It amazes me how quickly scientific hypotheses are
>reported on as being factual by even the most respected media organizations
>(NPR, PBS, BBS, etc.).  Without crying conspiracy, it's perfectly legitimate
>to be concerned about the propagation and detrimental side effects of bad
>science-based media hype.
>
>Just ask all of the Boomers out there who were unfairly deprived from being
>breast-fed.  Traumatic.
>
>Mark Walker.
>
>