[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gene Tinkering: YOU Are The Mice And They Don't Want You to Know



Mike Zauzig wrote:

> I feel it is the gene tinkerers that are the ones jumping to the
> premature
> conclusion that there is enough understanding to safely proceed.
> 
> For the most part I do trust the motives of our scientists.  However, I
> think anybody can develop tunnel vision and lose overall perspective,
> especially people who are as focused as scientists have to be.

I first want to compliment everyone in this thread for remaining civil, I 
will do my best to follow suit.  The best way to lose an arguement is to 
stop listening.

Mike, I am a geneticist (I don't mind the term "gene tinkerer", but we 
prefer "gene jockey").  I am currently researching genes which effect 
economically important traits in cattle.

In response to the first passage above, we definitely DO NOT assume that 
it is safe to tinker without causing harm.  The mountains of paperwork 
that we must go through to assure administrators is increasing 
exponentially (that does not mean that I think it is unnecessary).  Our 
proposed experiments go through multiple rounds of peer review and 
critique before we proceed (which improves the science).  The most 
important question asked during these reviews (in my experience) is "are 
we doing this because we SHOULD, or because we CAN?"  Failing to address 
this question is how scientists get "tunnel vision".

At this point, I must make some comments about human nature.  As a 
population, we resist change.  The statement "if it ain't broke..." is 
very appropriate.  Especially more recently, as we have seen the standard 
of living almost constantly increasing, it is easy to say "why take the 
chance?"  These questions are appropriate, and keep scientists focused on 
their objectives.

I do have a serious problem, however, with people who feel it is their 
civic duty to "inform" the populus of the unnatural and ungodly things 
that scientists are doing with their tax money.  There is a large 
difference between scientific critique and these folks.  Almost without 
exception, these "experts" all seem to fall into the same catagory:

1)  They have no accredited education in the field(s).
2)  They belong to (or lead) a non-profit organization.
3)  Said organization is seeking contributions (which are, of course, 
tax-deductible).
4)  They have authored several books (non-reviewed) about the subject.
5)  The message is fear, fear, fear.
6)  They are not taken seriously by the "scientific community".

The scientific community MUST take these people seriously.  Science has 
lost it's credibility in the last 50 years because of their inability to 
DEFEAT these people.  I use "DEFEAT", because I think persuasion is not 
possible.  How many times must a "scientific watchdog" be wrong before 
they lose credibility?

It is terribly easy to scare the public (is it any wonder why politicians 
spend more time talking about why the other guy is bad?).  For every 30 
seconds of air time that Jeremy Rifkin gets, I must spend 30 days 
correcting his false statements.  Of course, he gets air time because he 
is so "controversial".  It took 10 seconds for someone to say that Bovine 
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is related to Cruetzfeld-Jacobs Syndrome. 
 Were they correct?  We still don't know, but millions of cattle will be 
slaughtered in England to calm the public fears.

In closing, thank you for keeping an open mind.  If you have any 
questions that I may be able to address, I would be happy to try.

-- 
Michael Grosz
e-mail: grosz@larrl.ars.usda.gov



References: