Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

It's also clearly picking horses based on political preferences. The science behind GMO foods is solid, there is consensus, and the same "doubt tactics" are being used against it, yet it's not mentioned here. Probably because the opposition to GMO foods is coming from the left not the right in this case.

If we're going to back Science in all things, we need to back Science in all things, regardless of where that leads.

If we're not going to back it in all things, and follow blindly where it leads, then it's politics and all decisions are up for debate, regardless of the science.

I have huge faith in our ability to steer a good course between these rocks. We'll never get it perfectly right, of course, but going by our history we also won't mess it up completely.

View on HN

They've chosen two issues to be concerned about: climate change, and endocrine disruptors, and call out industry interests muddying the field (e.g., the tobacco, petrochemical, and agrochemical industries).

There are definitely other areas to be looking at. You mention GMO. As I understand it, the push-back on GMO is not by industry and commercial interests, but others, such as environmental and consumer groups. If you know of evidence to the contrary, please let me know in a comment.

Also, they're concerned about damage that might be done due to ignoring the science around climate change and endocrine disruptors. If they were concerned that GMO was an issue in the same way (as some against GMO would argue), I think they'd include that as well.

I agree that we'd all do well to try to separate our political ideologies from science, which is hard to due, given human psychology. From my reading of the piece, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of "clearly picking horses".

Where do we draw the line between push-back by industry and push-back by NGO? If an NGO derives its entire income from creating public concern about an issue, isn't that as much (or even more) of an incentive to disregard science for commercial gain?

I don't see that there's much difference between Shell creating doubt about climate change for profit and Greenpeace creating doubt about GMO food for salaries. Same tactics, same goal.

Good points. I'll admit the distinction isn't completely black and white to me. I do think that there is a distinction between NGOs and commercial entities. One intuition for that is that we've got words to distinguish between the two. And as you note, its the purpose of the NGO to pursue its agenda. For the commercial entity, the science in these cases is often accidental to their main purpose, which is to sell some other product.

Are you aware of NGO-funded science on the level of industry-funded science?

I don't think this NGO/industry distinction is the strongest argument in showing the statement isn't "picking horses". If the scientists were being political in, say, treating GMO separately, or creating FUD around GMO, I think it's likely they would have specifically included GMO in their statement, as if they were against GMO, it would align very well with the climate change and endocrine disruptor positions they take.

Edit to add: I'll also come clean on my motivation for posting. There are so many accusations of bias that I'm trying to examine statements as honestly as I can, avoiding knee-jerk reactions as much as possible. For example, it would be unfair of me to assume that because you bring up GMO that you're a "climate change denier" or some other unfounded accusation. I see way too much of that type of behavior, and it does nothing but deepen the divisions between people. That's not useful if I actually want you to, in turn, treat me charitably. After all, we're in a discussion forum, right? :)

It gets blurred because NGOs spend a lot of money lobbying governments, and governments do spend a lot of money funding science. It would be hard to believe that government science funding policy isn't at least influenced by NGO lobbying.

And then there's the matter of scientists being members of NGOs. Again, I would fully expect that a large number of (e.g.) environmental science researchers would be members of (e.g.) Greenpeace because I would expect that people passionate about the environment would want to study it, and also join organisations that are also passionate about the environment. There's nothing suspicious or conspiracy-engendering about this, but it does mean that there's a good chance the NGO is going to be able to get a scientist to write a paper saying something they want said.

I find it fascinating how the politics neatly align with the beliefs (right-leaning people almost always deny climate change but believe in nuclear power or GMO foods, for example). Then the arguments selectively invoke "it's the science!" for the beliefs that are supported by the science, and conveniently ignore the science for the beliefs that aren't.

As far as I'm aware, if the scientific community consensus is to be taken as the correct course of action every time, we should (for example): stop using fossil fuels and replace them with nuclear power plants. Almost nobody would be happy with this, though!

The issues this group has chosen to focus on--global warming and the release of endocrine disruptors into the environment--are ones where the damage is exceedingly difficult to undo once done. In contrast, a current lack of investment in GMOs does nothing to prevent GMO development in the future. (How often do you hear someone describe decreased development of GMOs as a "crisis"?) So there are perfectly defensible reasons for them to prioritize global warming and endocrine disruption over GMOs, and no basis in this document for an accusation that this group is acting from purely political motives (for which you cite no evidence beyond the absence of GMOs from their agenda).

Well we need to produce more food, more efficiently, especially if we will not be able to use fossil-fuel-derived fertilisers and climate change will reduce our current food output. GMO foods is an answer to that crisis, so yes, it's important that we decide whether to adopt them or not.

GMOs are one answer, there are numerous others that don't destroy farmland so effectively (intercropping, aeroponics, ocean farms, to name a few) or put farmers under the gun of chemical companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com