Hello Julian

I would like to retract the anti accusation. It was wrong of me. I disagree most are against GM ingredients. From the limited NON-push polls I have seen from Austrailia I think the vast majority do not care one way or the other. Price, quality and freshness are far more important to them. No one told the public when they started using ionizing radiation to breed new crops many decades ago, or chemical mutagens either. In both cases the changes to the DNA are massive and completely unknown. I suspect if the public was made aware of how the non-gm crops have been made for decades they would have context. Something sadly lacking in the debate for the most part. It is context that I try to add to the debate as often as possible.

Funny you mention choice. It is the very anti-crowd who are calling for bans not those in favour of the technology. Have a look at my article "No label Required" on my website and see what I mean. if the link doesn't work it is at http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

It is interesting you should mention peoples rights and freedoms. Whos rights and what freedoms are most important? Organic food represents about 2% of the food supply (growing but still 2%) and yet it is the organic movement that is calling for the other 98% to not use a proven technology. That does not seem right to me, does it to you?

Look forward to your response.

Cheers

Rob

Good points, Rob. However when I refer to human rights as the basis for developing new forms of science governance, I mean basic human rights - safety, liberty, equality, due process and welfare. If a new science or technology imperils any if these, then it merits sterner public scrutiny. Science, as I see it, is here to benefit the human race - not to erode its rights. Unfortunately, selfish application of S&T can have that effect and thus requires wider oversight - especially if the unfortunate public are being asked to foot the research bill as well as cop the consequences.

Hello Julian

I am not sure we are disagreeing. I too have some reservations about nanotechnology. The thought of universal solvents everywhere bothers myself a fair bit. the skin is a wonderful barrier but no match for such solvents. I guess I still come back to who decides, those that make the most noise as is the case with some organic food supporters/lobbists and protectionist countries with GM crops regulations. Clearly the science and the policies are in complete disconnect. I agree that if the public is footing th bill then a greater say should be granted in the process. But we are still stuck with the basic science illiteracy of the public. This sets them up to follow 'false gods" all too often. Who says marketing is dead. Say did you get a chance to read any of the articles I wrote on GM crops and food? I recently penned one on Nuclear Power in Canada. I see you are having the same debate downunder. Do you use much nuclear power generation there?

Cheers

Rob

An excellent article from Julian Cribb.

I've been concerned for some time that if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, then we have to believe in reason and that requires open public debate. This isn't happening in science in Australia. As an example ...... the ABC handling of the Durkin climate doco should represent the warning sign that there is something rotten to the core here because the specific role of investigative science journalism seems dead and buried. All we see is an obvious promotion of ugly `scientism'. This is a formula that holds scientists above criticism and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world.

It is easy to forget that science is essentially a philosophical discipline (and most definitely not theological). It is based on empiricism, the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. Because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations then we obviously hold fast to a belief in causality (the "how") where we are all scientists. We are also all artists concerned with the "what" and philosophers interrogating the "why".

Open public debate should start with the establishment of a dedicated national science channel to address for starters just how humanity collectively can ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence? We sometimes should start with our best information and just remind ourselves of what we know for a fact .... that with the advent of consciousness we can no longer now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it.... all our actions are evolutionary.