Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Remember tobacco? A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless [View all]pnwmom
(110,301 posts)94. Then why were those 24 corn scientists protesting, according to Scientific American?
Where is your link?
And they weren't attempting to reverse-engineer the seeds. They needed to use them for planting.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their researchthey must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studiesmost have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Remember tobacco? A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless [View all]
pnwmom
Mar 2015
OP
The difference between a scientific study and a "scientific" study is not obvious to some
hobbit709
Mar 2015
#5
My question, though, was whether there was an actual scientific study that showed tobacco was safe.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#11
Which makes a good case for consumers being aware of what is and isn't junk science
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#61
The government should regulate known health risks when the industry does not
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#63
So you think what happened almost 100 years ago is just as applicable today?
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#68
Naturally we would all be better off living in trees and throwing shit at each other
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#93
Did giving women over 50 mare piss? Who doesn't want breast cancer over hot flashes!
KittyWampus
Mar 2015
#22
"A product once "scientifically" proven to be harmless" + "I don't know."
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2015
#102
what about Premarin? Nothing like giving women breast cancer to treat menopause.
KittyWampus
Mar 2015
#20
Misinformation by Gov't somehow seems less nefarious when compared to Corporate greed
Sheepshank
Mar 2015
#76
Evil Doktor Reagan helped shut down ''Socialized Medicine'' then JFK got shot.
Octafish
Mar 2015
#30
And what a life! He made 'Liberal' into a bad word transformed 'Racist' into 'Conservative.'
Octafish
Mar 2015
#34
Every time I had an earache, my grandpa would blow cigarette smoke in my ear.
ScreamingMeemie
Mar 2015
#16
The problem with tobacco is not so much lung cancer as copd and other respiratory issues
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#18
Bill Clinton's Justice department filed racketeering charges against Big Tobacco.
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#51
It was market-driven "science" that supported the case. Just like today's market-
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#42
We can not only talk about giving cancer causing premarin to menopausal women to illustrate
KittyWampus
Mar 2015
#24
The ultimate example for the necessity of government oversight and regulation'
yallerdawg
Mar 2015
#28
To be fair, it was hard for tobacco company executives to understand scientists
tclambert
Mar 2015
#54
Thanks for making my point, once we found out it was dangerous we started......
Logical
Mar 2015
#64
I know it isn't static. The GMO producers want to convince us that it is static --
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#67
So somehow something that was known 100 years ago compares to something that isn't known today?
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#69
Not true. Over 150 universities have blanket agreements with patent holders
Major Nikon
Mar 2015
#87
Then why were those 24 corn scientists protesting, according to Scientific American?
pnwmom
Mar 2015
#94
You'd think science WAS static if you looked at the posts of some GMO labeling detractors.
Gormy Cuss
Mar 2015
#78