On Jul 17, 10:54*am, dpb wrote:
Limp Arbor wrote:

...

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food
supply

This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin
in a usenet thread is pointless so...

Made up?
"Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm
people’s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops
might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects,
or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered
fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving
wild populations to extinction."
source:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_envir...c_engineering/


Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work

So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative
agents? *How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect
knowledge a priori?

I would prefer that they understood how & why they work before they
are released.
Ex.
Minoxodil was developed to treat blood pressure problems, a side
effect is hair grwoth.
Viola! Rogaine.


Plum Island

And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and
prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases
be transmitted to humans? *These are existing pathogens that have done
tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US.
* That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such
places as Plum Island.

Agreed that they have good intentions but accidents happen, that is
why some people fear science.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24065416/


Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart
enough to keep it under control. *That is why we have Frankenstein, I
Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other
books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone
else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). *It's probably better to
have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive
abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine
locations only.

Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree with
Al Gore.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
So one side or the other (probably both) is being irresponsible and
they're all scientists. No doubt some believe they are right, some do
it for pilitical or grant$ reasons, and some are just plain stupid.
Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are
basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.

I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.