Letters to the Editor
-
Science
What do you expect from an an Administration that believes Creationism is also a "science"?
-
This century?
But has there been any other American administration, this century, that has been more dismissive of science, or more brazenly political in its policy-making?
Has there been any other American administration this century?
No need to limit yourself ...
-
And who are YOU kidding Andrew?
Salon doesn't have a science blog. It has a feminism blog, an economics blog and a technology blog and a politics blog and a media blog.
Where the hell is science?
You guys do not respect science, unless you can use science to bash Bush.
I'm happy to bash Bush, but really, science deserves respect on its own.
And you guys don't measure up, sorry.
-
And then
You start this really interesting discussion about why China didn't have a scientific revolution like Europe did.
But at the last minute, you decided you were REALLY asking why China didn't have an Industrial Revolution like the one in Europe.
Those are two separate questions, not two versions of the same question.
The answer to one is not the answer to the other.
The problem is, you run an economics blog, and there isn't really any place in Salon where science is a topic of interest just because it's science.
-
GM foods not proven unsafe -- nor are they proven safe
I know what he means: the U.S. position -- again, at the behest of the biotech industry -- is that other nations should not be able to ban genetically modified food products unless they can prove, scientifically, that they post a real danger to human health or the environment.
Yes, every US press article on GM crops (the few that are allowed to appear in print) points out that there has been no proof that they are harmful.
Of course, what they don't say is that there also is no proof that they are safe. It's funny that the FDA won't permit a drug on the market until it has been proven safe in controlled studies, but no similar requirement exists for food. When you consider that GM crops are generally modified to include the equivalent of a built-in pesticide -- well, one has to wonder about the long term effects on the animals who eat those built-in pesticides in quantity.
Most Europeans understand this, so oppose GM foods until such proof exists. Most of the American press, when they cover the issue at all, dismisses the European concerns as superstition.
-
I could cry...
Between the utter failure of U.S. schools to scientifically educate the next generation, the brain drain in almost every major gov't institution (FEMA, FDA, EPA, etc.) the half-baked scientific policies of the Bush White house and the Republican controlled houses of congress before him
We're screwed. We won't be able to compete.
The other posters are right, Salon needs a science blog.
-
Nothing new here
This is just another example of Bush's "Yours stinks, but ours doesn't" approach to everything. He is constantly criticizing others for behavior that he is guilty of himself.
-
micro ms
It's not the youngest generation (of which I am a part) that concerns me, it's the ready willingness of even so-called liberals such as those on this site to engage in thoroughly anti-intellectual behavior. See the comments on any article referencing the biotech industry, vaccinations, gas mileage improving scams, etc.
The lack of science education is a problem, but it's hardly limited to just those younger than you.
-
'Bone-headed' and "Bush Adminstration"
Mean the same thing.
Somebody had to say it.
-
This American Life episode, "Fake Science"
The "Fake Science" episode of This American Life exposes some of the Bush Administration's hostility toward real science. You can listen to it online for free, and it's really entertaining.
-
Ed Schafer is by no means "a decent man"
I lived in ND during much of his administration. He's a corrupt party hack. Anyone who thinks dirty machine politics is limited to big-city Democrats need look no further than Schafer for proof that rural Republicans are at least as bad.
-
boneheaded bush admin - I beg to raise to the power of 10
It has been extremely difficult to read the comments of bush's political hacks without jumping up and running through the streets foaming at the mouth. To see a proud American trait of honestly using science to solve problems being made subservient to political power could mark the passing of US science competence.
Ugly American? - How about flunkie political hack of the near comatose bush admin. Much more descriptive.
-
Ugly American? No, just poor US!
I do not know if that is any better: I think we Europeans will just shrug Ed Shafer off and commiserate a country that has to put up another eight months with those clowns.
I sincerely hope that we won't drift too far into our feeling superior to "les américains". I can assure you, there are enough boneheads over here. Somehow and so far we have managed that they don't dare to mouth as blatantly as the Bushies all the inanities they are thinking.
-
Policies on GM crops should be fail-safe
anonny is absolutely right. We should have fail-safe policies. Nothing gets foisted on us by entities who only care about their own profits unless it is proven safe; not the other way around. Further, there must be safeguards for those who do not wish to have their cultivars ruined by GM pollen wafting with the breeze--not to mention legal protection against demands for royalties for crap they did not want. And finally, we must respect the sovereign decision made by other countries (what a concept!). If they don't want GM, that's their business, and that is their right.
If the GM industry is unwilling to meet this standard then GM should be deep-sixed. Anyone arguing that the benefits from GM should trump these common-sense requirements need to outline and demonstrate these benefits. GM has been all sizzle and no steak so far.
PS I agree with Silenced. A science blog on Salon would be nice.
-
He should say the right thing
I daresay you sound like you are advocating that Mr. Schafer should play politics, rather than tell the truth. Or perchance you are even playing a little politics yourself? Intertwining politics and science is almost as uncouth as conflating religion and the state, but far more acceptable. But to the extent that science, real science, can inform our political discourse, I say hear hear. We should not condemn anyone who promotes that message. If we feel they are being disingenuous, then call them out on that. In fact, I don't believe Mr. Schafer is attempting to deceive anyone. He honestly believes that genetically modified crops and other such improvements to our agricultural output are real advancements, harmless, and a boon to society. He may be wrong, but let's debate that on the merits, not on the premise that his superiors are luddites, so he should follow suit. In fact, if he is taking a different position than his superiors, he should be given at least a little credit, if not applauded, for his courage.
BTW Andrew, I really love your articles, I read them religiously. I just wonder - how the hell do you keep up with all of this stuff?! Do you ever sleep? Thank you for condensing so much of the important things going on in the world into something I can digest. You are doing an amazing job and a great service.