HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I succumbed to peer press...

Sat May 25, 2013, 08:13 PM

I succumbed to peer pressure today...

and I feel dirty because I Fucking Love Science

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/11/retraction-gm-crop-cancer-study.html

I participated in the March Against Monsanto

22 replies, 2409 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply I succumbed to peer pressure today... (Original post)
roseBudd May 2013 OP
Voice for Peace May 2013 #1
Voice for Peace May 2013 #2
roseBudd May 2013 #3
randome May 2013 #6
roseBudd May 2013 #13
roseBudd May 2013 #4
TalkingDog May 2013 #5
roseBudd May 2013 #8
TalkingDog May 2013 #15
TalkingDog May 2013 #16
midnight May 2013 #20
Lordquinton May 2013 #7
roseBudd May 2013 #9
Scuba May 2013 #10
rucky May 2013 #11
roseBudd May 2013 #12
rucky May 2013 #22
Bonx May 2013 #14
roseBudd May 2013 #18
Bonx May 2013 #19
jazzimov May 2013 #17
hedgehog May 2013 #21

Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sat May 25, 2013, 08:26 PM

1. BRAVO!

 

did you march? many were cheering over the interwaves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sat May 25, 2013, 08:28 PM

2. haha oops

 

i jumped the gun..

science is an art, of course.. always subject to
new directions and creativity from within itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #2)

Sat May 25, 2013, 09:19 PM

3. How is this different than climate denier Lord Monkton's bad science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Reply #3)

Sat May 25, 2013, 09:43 PM

6. Some art is bad.

 

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #6)

Sun May 26, 2013, 07:06 AM

13. Peer reviewed research is the gold standard

Us elites will never starve as a result of our food snobbery

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/24176/

The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops has continued to occur at a rapid rate, with important changes in both the overall level of adoption and impact occurring in 2011. This annual updated analysis shows that there have been very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $19.8 billion in 2011 and $98.2 billion for the 16 year period (in nominal terms). The majority (51.2%) of these gains went to farmers in developing countries. GM technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the four main crops, having added 110 million tonnes and 195 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid-1990s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sat May 25, 2013, 09:33 PM

5. One fucked up study does nothing to make them less evil.

They still strong-arm farmers, ignore the fact that GM crops lead to greater use of pesticides and so on and so on.

Your conscience is spotless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #5)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:42 AM

8. It is a fraudulent study, and it is the only one

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

There is so much wrong with the experimental design that the conclusion is inescapable that the investigators intended to get a spurious, preordained result. Here are a few of the criticisms that have been raised by the scientific community:

– the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.

– there is no documentation of the rats’ food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;

– the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the “treated rats”), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper);

– the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, called the treatment of data “a statistical fishing trip”;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Reply #8)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:57 PM

15. Um.... your point?

I agree that the study is bad. Let me repeat: I agree that the study is bad.

But, as I said, that does nothing to suggest they are not evil bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Reply #8)

Sun May 26, 2013, 02:01 PM

16. And if you want some science on damage done, here's an article for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #16)

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:31 PM

20. I really like this article.... Now I don't feel so bad that I have so many dandelions in my yard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 01:25 AM

7. GMOs are a big problem, but not why you might think

It's not "We don't know what they contain and what they might do" it's that they an patent their seeds and then let nature take it's course, then they can legally sue anyone for everything they have. That's the real danger GMOs present.

You did the right thing, wish I could have gotten out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #7)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:43 AM

9. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with promulgating bad science

We should be better than that.

Otherwise we are no different than climate change deniers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:44 AM

10. Thank you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 06:48 AM

11. How rigorous are the studies that get this stuff approved in the first place?

Not journal-worthy, I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rucky (Reply #11)

Sun May 26, 2013, 07:00 AM

12. You suspect. Shouldn't you do the research before

jumping to that conclusion?

I did, because I Fucking Love Science.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gm+corn

How is not looking into this any different than a climate change denier looking no further than a Daily Mail article claiming therte has been no warming in the past 15 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Reply #12)

Sun May 26, 2013, 08:48 PM

22. I would, but I don't have a lab. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 10:12 AM

14. My sister just went to a Monsanto protest

I wasn't that familiar, and this thread got me looking.
Seems the crux of the issue is: "critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment." (C&P from a USA Today article).
There is a lot of passion, but is there real science there on this claim yet ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonx (Reply #14)

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:02 PM

18. Only one flawed if not fraudulent study that claims GM corn causes cancer

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/11/retraction-gm-crop-cancer-study.html

Study flaws
The EFSA concluded that the researchers, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in France, failed to use enough rats in the study to draw statistically valid conclusions about whether the GM food or glyphosate they were fed caused extra cancers compared with control rats. Furthermore, says the authority, the researchers relied on strains of rats that frequently develop tumours spontaneously, especially in old age.

"Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between the treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported," says the review of the study. The same conclusion was reached independently by six national food safety bodies also asked to review the study, from Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium.

The EFSA and the panels say that Séralini used a fifth as many rats as would be required for standard, internationally accepted toxicology testing, making his conclusions statistically unreliable. "Given the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats, the low number of rats reported in the Séralini publications is insufficient to distinguish between specific treatment effects and chance occurrences of tumours in rats," says the authority.

The EFSA found the NK603 maize strain to be safe in 2003. In its report this week, it declared that there is no need to re-evaluate the safety of the maize or the herbicide.

Séralini's backersclaim that he's the victim of a "covert war" orchestrated by supporters of GM technology to discredit criticism. "Behind the cohort of academic titles [of critics] that are listed is a hidden 'biotech sphere' which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry," says a statement from CRIIGEN, the France-based Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, which opposes GM crops and supported Séralini's study.

The study is the second in recent years by Séralini to assess the safety of NK603. His first study was also critised. New Scientist wrote at the time: "Independent toxicologists contacted by New Scientist said Séralini's analysis overplays the importance of minor variations that most experienced toxicologists would consider to be random background noise."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Reply #18)

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:22 PM

19. Thanks ! -nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:42 PM

17. I Fucking Love Science, too. And here's what I know -

there is a lot of controversial and contradictory studies on this subject. They are all suspect, both pro and con. There is no definitive study, at least not yet.

However, let's look at the primary company producing GMO foods - Monsanto. They are definitely evil. Their practices have shown that they will stop at nothing to make a profit.

I suspect that they would spend lots of money falsifying data and attacking other studies.

I believe that GMO foods can offer great accomplishments. However, I do not trust Monsanto.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roseBudd (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 05:04 PM

21. Ahem....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread