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: Outrageous! Why are people opposed to GM rice which saves lives and prevents blindness? [View all]Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)5. Bjørn Lomborg? Just for the record, his PhD is in political science not nutrition.
Accusations of scientific dishonesty
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
DCSD investigation
On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[8]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
DCSD investigation
On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling sent a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[8]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 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
Outrageous! Why are people opposed to GM rice which saves lives and prevents blindness? [View all]
True Earthling
May 2012
OP
That is an old article - There is a new strain that yields 10X more Vitamin A
True Earthling
May 2012
#7
Vitamin A & beta-carotene are easy to get from food. There are lots of good sources.
HiPointDem
May 2012
#45
Who mentioned Monsanto? You interjected it, and now you're calling people Luddites?
marmar
May 2012
#18
Why do you hate children having well-balanced diets, instead of diets consisting mostly of
HiPointDem
May 2012
#46
Because free rice undercuts market prices, not just for rice but also for other staple grains. When
HiPointDem
May 2012
#53
In Nigeria the small family farmers were driven off their land which the peanut farms then occupied
jwirr
May 2012
#77
"expected...potential...depend on" - any hard data published that would prove the claims?
Prometheus Bound
May 2012
#35
I see. There is no proof of the claims. So this thread is a waste of time.
Prometheus Bound
May 2012
#66
Bjørn Lomborg? Just for the record, his PhD is in political science not nutrition.
Prometheus Bound
May 2012
#5
Since when is wanting to save lives and prevent blindness a "right wing meme"?
True Earthling
May 2012
#21
Nope, that is not why me and others are here. We are here to talk with other
stevenleser
May 2012
#24
The CATO Institute is funded by the Koch brothers and big corporations.
UnrepentantLiberal
May 2012
#28
With your link that is three posts with right wing memes. Unfortunately, poster has too many
stevenleser
May 2012
#54
in the meantime, is anyone trying to provide these people with regular vitamin A?
eShirl
May 2012
#25
Charity rice from america undercuts prices in their ag sector, meaning small farmers lose their land
HiPointDem
May 2012
#47
Charity rice from america is making it impossible for traditional agriculture to exist. It
HiPointDem
May 2012
#48
It doesn't have to feed 7 billion people. And neither is hi-tech agriculture feeding 7 billion
HiPointDem
May 2012
#55
The problem being that agribusiness *won't* feed six or seven or however many billion people..
Fumesucker
May 2012
#67
Because Vit A a/o beta-carotene are so easy to find in foods that the only reason kids would
HiPointDem
May 2012
#37
GM food, along with the "Green Revolution", has done a good job feeding the world's population
bhikkhu
May 2012
#60
Those are the real questions that need answering. Farmers in Africa and around the world have
jwirr
May 2012
#78
+1. Why do GM companies oppose their products being labeled "GM"? That's the real argument. nt
Honeycombe8
May 2012
#73