[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: