1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Fishing
›
3. Genetically Modified Crops hurting Aquatic Ecosystems!, Page 3

Well it appears to me that the opinions are still flying back and forth but in a much more civil pitch. The bashing of the Bush administration, Corporate America and science itself continues. Now I’m not a scientist but I respect the education and opinion of all on this site. The dilemma as I see it is this; we have been lied to, feed half truths, cheated, coerced, divided and terrorized from the top down. So who are we to believe? I believe that in a democracy the majority rule, but I also believe that a majority does not necessarily make it right. Pull the wool over the eyes of the majority and they will follow like sheep.
The arguments will continue back and forth based on opinion. The right from wrong will be determined in the future. Some profess that we are digging ourselves into a hole from which we will not escape. I believe we will find a way to climb out. Profound change, yes. Inevitable, yes. As sure as the clock is ticking.

Jonathon, thank you for injecting your own air of civility and clear analysis. I am very uneasy about bioengineering and about the many chemicals that find their way into our water, chemicals that are being created daily and marketed with far too little analysis of their potential damage. As for the current administration, although I have never been active on political campaigns before, I worked the last two elections, going door to door day after day, to try to keep Bush (and his cronies) from doing the damage we have seen and continue to see in many sectors. I am in favor of open and fair discussions, something Bush seems to oppose. A clear and open mind is critical in these times.

I am headed for my dream cruise of my life with my wife and I seldom post to forums just because of what happened on this particular thread. But this one is something I am associated with and want everyone to know what is going on. However, I do not wish to fan the flames or insult anyone with my response. I have worked for the pharmaceutical industry for over 30 years of my life. Soon I will retire. I am proud of the many things I have done in the industry and few of them, well not so proud. Everyone has to make a living and I'm sure all of you understand this.

What you have here is a highly independent, critical scientist in Gene and someone else in Shocking that is perhaps more reserved in his opinion of the way things work. Unfortunately, I can tell you that the model used by both the pharmaceutical and biotech industry is the same. I should know how it works because we and the biotech industry spend unbelievable amounts of money on it. Whenever anything is published or written about in the media against either industry there is an immediate response. Every singe paper or study must me countered. Gene obviously knows it, Shocking believes otherwise.

If any of you think for one minute that the biotech website that Shocking listed with 5 biotech related scientists is not biased think again. Do you really think that these particular scientists just got together to protest the paper? This was an orchestrated, prescribed and highly coordinated attack on the first study mentioned. This is the model used and you can trace the paper trail all of the time. You can do this easily by tracking the public relations and media releases of the industry usually! These people will be compensated directly or indirectly for their efforts. Dr. Henry Miller works for both the bio tech industry and the pharmaceutical. He is a hired gun. He was formerly at the FDA. He now believes that there should be no regulation at the FDA or any limits on what the Biotech industry does. He attacks other scientists all of the time and you may be able to find some of his attacks on the net. To put it bluntly Miller is a paid shill and a good one!

Gene recognized this man immediately but Shocking did not. This perplexes me a bit and I will demur on whether Shocking has a financial interest and give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not. However, Gene's so called comments are nothing new. I have heard them over and over again by other scientists and critics. In fact, Gene is actually a bit more polite than some. I'm sorry Shocking and I do not wish to insult you or anyone else but you have a very distiled almost sterile view of how science works.

It's a game and it's one I wish we didn't play. But not all data are created equal. Good scientists know that the SOURCE AND WHO PAID FOR THE DATA must be understood in the context of the data. Also, people are paid to interpret the study or data. Now who do you think the biotech industry would pay to do this? Do any of you believe that a paper would appear on the biotech website that would have a study or analysis of data against their products?

Some of you may find Gene too critical, too colorful, and perhaps a bit too provocative however I do not. Most scientists start out like Gene and then realize it's too hard making a living by being so critical and then begin to look the other way. This guy doesn't and whether you agree with him or not I find that kind of amazing. I know how these industries work because I work for them and Gene appears to know how they work too. Gene's only sin is one of passion. People like him actually do scare us in the industry because obviously he cannot be bought and is hard to pin down with any group like the Miller's Hoover Institute. Unfortunately for us in court juries would judge someone like him to be more objective source than many of the people we pay for. I know because I have been involved in some of these proceedings and our highly paid experts get torn to pieces by skilled lawyers just by who they work for because juries don't think they are objective and credible.

Well I've said enough. I apologize if I have insulted anyone. Someone talked about shooting the messenger well I think you did. But Gene was the messenger who got shot because whether you like his critical, colorful, and passionate analysis for the most part that is the way it works. He is correct. This was an orchestrated reply by industry like so many others that occur every week. This one just happened to get tied up in this thread. You can believe what you want but if you look for another study or paper that is critical of either industry then you should look for a similar type of reply. Also, look who is on it because people like Miller won't be far away. As I said previously our industry does a lot of good but I am not proud of this part of it. When I retire I may look upon it and wish I had done more to stop it but I guess that's why there should always be "nasty scientists" like Gene to give the public some perspective!

Happy Holidays

OK, Against my better judgement and at odds with my vow to not go on with this, I will post just one challenge to this group. Can anyone provide a good explanation for why the authors of the original paper/press release did not mention their conflicting studies posted at the folling links?

http://nabs.confex.com/nabs/2007/techprogram/P1698.HTM
http://nabs.confex.com/nabs/2007/techprogram/P1519.HTM

This is a simple question about a specific issue. I request that those responding please stick to this specific question and not go on about the larger issues discussed here, although they are quite important. I would also like to thank the folks who have continued this discussion in a civil manner, whether they share my perspective or not.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving! I am certainly thankful to live in a country where we have the luxury of discussing these issues rather than worrying about where our next meal will come from.

P.S. To those that sent me private messages, I did not know they existed until today when my 11-year old that was looking over my shoulder pointed this out to me. Thanks to all of you!

Shocking:
First you post this in response to Gene's original post.


"Relax! This was just the teaser. The rest of the story is at the links below (their other results). Academics need funding, and sometimes they don't tell the whole story, especially when its boring.

http://nabs.confex.com/nabs/2007/techprogram/P1698.HTM

http://nabs.confex.com/nabs/2007/techprogram/P1519.HTM"

You attack Gene's post and then attack the academics.

Then you post this:


"A letter to the editor from non-industry scientist from several countries in response to the caddisfly paper can be found at the following link:

http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=27&topic=9.msg24"

Nonindustry scientists! Really! I decided to check a few of them out and what Gene and other people said are correct. They are industry scientists no matter what you say. And the website is an industry site. It's okay for you to attack the academics about their funding but when Gene attacks your source's fundings it's not okay!

I think if I were a scientist I might have been insulted too and would question who you work for also.

Now you repost two of the orginial links and try and argue that the scienitists didn't find the same stuff in their other studies. I thought you just wanted talk about the so called data in the study Gene originally posted?

You like to pick and choose how you manipulate the arguement. You question what you want but if anyone else questions anything let's stick to the data. Now you are basically accusing the original scienitsts of impropriety because they did other studies?

You cherry pick the data you want. I went and read those links and didn't one of the scientists say that more studies were needed! Didn't Gene say that too. What's the big deal shouldn't we get it right or should we just count on you and the industry reps for our science?

I guess you can fool most of the people most of the time including the folks on here. Yes, stick to the orginal study as Gene posted versus your industry scientists. But I guess they must be correct because you said so! And the academic scientists that you questioned are not objective because they just did it for more funding!

I fail to find the logic in anything you've said because you contradict yourself with your posts. It doesn't matter because I don't really think most people really understand the situation. Here's a challenge to you and the other folks on this site: investigate all the scientists who sent the so called media release and see if they have an opnion, study, report, or analysis that was ever contrary to industry. Because two can play the challenge game. Since you want to bring in other studies don't you think this is fair?

I've watched many of these fly fishing forums be corrupted over the years by company men, industry plants, and trolls (like the other fellow who attacked Gene). This one looks like it's about done. If I want to read the company line of how everything is done I'll just pick up the newspaper or watch tv, I sure don't need to read it here. One other point you folks are sure touchy about a few colorful words etc. Gene quit those nasty words and bad thoughts because all us good people never use them. So please don't read the bible, or Catcher in the Rye or go to the movies because you'll all be corrupted!

Lunker,

So what was your explaination for why the Rosi-Marshall group did not cite their own studies that found no effects in actual streams in corn fields? And what was their motives for the press releases? It is a pretty rare thing to post press releases for a scientific publication. You are correct that all parties seem to bring bias to this argument. However, other than fanning the flames of fear, I am looking for another explanation for this behavior. I do not know the scientists that wrote the letter to the editor, but I expect from all the flap that they too have an agenda. Now that we can see that they have an agenda, how about the validity of their critisism? I don't expect anyone to take anything said here or in the various documents on faith. Use your own judgement and objectively and tell me if the totality of the data in the Rosi-Marshall studies really indicates risk to aquatic ecosystems? By the way (and you can check this wherever you wish), The target of the Bt in question is Lepidoperan larvae (caterpillars) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) diverged from this group an estimated 200-300 milion years ago. I question everything that I read in science (especially when it contradicts the larger scientific literature) until it is independently confirmed. I admit that I am repulsed by the hypocrisy of those that think all large companies are evil while communicating through an internet dominated by such companies with a car made by these companies sitting in their garage. If folks didn't want the products made by these companies, the companies would disapear. In a free society, we can sell what people will buy as long as it is deemed safe by our regulatory agencies based on science. I for one am glad to live in such a society. When you reply to my rant, please include your answer to the questions posed in this post and the last. Why would the Rosi-Marshall group not address their own studies that show no effects in actual streams in Bt corn fields?

I continue to read this thread partly to see how the discussion is evolving in terms of tone, and I am happy to see people asking direct and probing questions without inflammatory rhetoric. This allows all to weigh the arguments without reacting emotionally. I understand that people may be passionate about a topic, but the best way to get my attention is to use self control to channel that passion into articulate and civil argumentative prose. I hope those with the expertise to bring data to the fore will continue in this vein.