Hacker News Reader

Similar with cellphone radiation research that is funded by industry, medical research etc. If the taxpayer is paying, it will be seen as a hidden subsidy, if the industry pays, it will be seen as conflict of interest.

On top of that, it can be true that industry funds research that is potentially biased to a certain conclusion where the conclusion is actually true.

I think the way its done in biotechnology is that the company pays and some 3rd party lab (e.g. university) then does the experiment.

There is also a positive bias from industry studies due to the fact that products tested internally that don't work will not be pursued and therefore that research is not published.

> I think the way its done in biotechnology is that the company pays and some 3rd party lab (e.g. university) then does the experiment.

The OP's article suggests this method has lead to uncomfortable bises in the past.

> cellphone radiation

Doesn't look like one-sided research, just missing evidence. So unless you can come up with clear evidence that this radiation is harmful, I'll guess we have to live with

  "to date, no adverse health effects have been established
   as being caused by mobile phone use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_hea...

I don't think cellphone radiation is harmful.

I'm just pointing out that it's a logical mistake to assume it is harmful just because some of the research was sponsored by industry.

> While a lot of the research was done by industry (which is how its supposed to, why should the public pay for safety testing of products ?)

Actually, no, this doesn't make sense to me. If a manufacturer is in charge of safety-testing its own product, there is an obvious conflict of interest and incentive to interpret the test result as favorable for the product as possible. (Or to tailor the product to the test)

To put it bluntly, you wouldn't put the wolf in charge of safety-testing the chicken pen either.

So especially for safety tests a publicly funded, independent institution would make sense to me. (Of course, keeping that institution independent is another problem)

I agree, but that doesn't mean that the safety testing has to be done by the company.

A system where the company pays for the a 3rd independent party to do the testing is desirable IMO

But then the independent third party has an incentive on results that are in favor of the payer, i.e., the company.

not necessarily. if they get paid to do the tests whether or not it there is a positive or negative outcome, that incentive is reduced.

The choice of 3rd party should be open, transparent and done by the regulating agencies.

If you're thinking of just one round of testing this is true. But if a 3rd party tester gets a reputation for being tough then everyone tests with another tester. This creates a race to the bottom, where the is an implicit competition to get a reputation as the least stringent tester. This is essentially what happened with the credit rating agencies during the financial crisis.

you missed the part where he said choosing the tester is done by regulating authorities. That would prevent the financial ratings agency fiasco.

> why should the public pay for safety testing of products?

Because private companies have strong counter-incentives to ignore or obfuscate safety issues with their products? Counter-incentives that have been shown repeatedly to have caused companies to lie, cheat, steal, and corrupt the scientific, political, and social processes in place to prevent unsafe products from being sold to the public?

Why should the taxpayer subsidize industry? Isn't it their job to prove their products are safe?

Recent car-maker shenanigans suggest industry shouldn't be trusted in this regard.

> GMOs are no more risky than traditional breeding and mutagenics

It can be argued the risks are adequately protected against, but to say they are equal just seems like intransegence. As technologies advance the potential utility and risks raise together. Would you not be more concerned by an adversary weaponising modern GE than traditional breeding?

I think they were referring to unintended risks. There's probably less chance modify a plant in an inadvertently bad way with GE as its more precise. But yes if you want to weaponise an organism, it easier with GE.

However, from my understanding, the regulations of GMOs are much more stringent than for other types of breeding.

You can traditionally breed a potato to have high levels of solanine and i'm not sure whether regulations would stop it from going to market.

Modern GE may be achieving degrees of precision in certain biochemical contexts, but in other biological contexts essential to establishing GMO safety we still face confounding complexity and mystery. We should recognise life on Earth is vulnerable to human error (CFCs, Global warming ...) and respect the process and fruits of natural history.

"and respect the process and fruits of natural history"

sounds to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. The crops we grow have been modified beyond recognition from their wild counterparts. Add to that use of mutagenics to randomly mutate plant dna and that hasn't ushered any cataclysm.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any danger and you can't prove beyond doubt that any food is safe, at the end of the day its a risk vs benefit decision. The evidence shows that GE crops lead to less land use via better efficiency and reduced pesticide use.