Comments on: Public Nano-tudes http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/ Progressive approaches to science policy Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:54:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Kevin Carroll http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/comment-page-1/#comment-3891 Kevin Carroll Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:30:06 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/#comment-3891 I'm relatively new to this site so maybe you've discussed this angle before, but I think many objections to new technologies are not anti-science or anti-fact, but are based on what the market does with these new advances. A case in point is BT (Bacillus thuringensis)resistant corn, where recombitant gene technologies are used to incorporate a bacteria into corn which kills the moth larvae that feed on the corn. About 80% of the corn grown in the U.S. has BT in it. The downside is that the evolution of BT resistant caterpillars has sped up rapidly in an environment where they are exposed to vast acreages of BT. Even the makers of BT-resistant corn admit that effective resistance will occur in about 25 years. Indiscriminate use of this technology will effectively remove BT, one of the main weapons in the artillery of organic farmers. We can go on and on. How about Round-Up resistant corn and soybeans, which allows indiscriminate use of one of the most commonly used and environmentally benign herbicides on the market? Already Round-Up resistant weeds are appearing and will (relatively)soon render Round-Up useless. Of course, gene recombination is a potentially powerful and useful technology, but in the free market its potential is sacrificed for short term profit. The government has proven to be an ineffective regulator of this technology, and I'm not sure it would be any more effective at regulating nanotechnology. Kevin I’m relatively new to this site so maybe you’ve discussed this angle before, but I think many objections to new technologies are not anti-science or anti-fact, but are based on what the market does with these new advances.

A case in point is BT (Bacillus thuringensis)resistant corn, where recombitant gene technologies are used to incorporate a bacteria into corn which kills the moth larvae that feed on the corn. About 80% of the corn grown in the U.S. has BT in it. The downside is that the evolution of BT resistant caterpillars has sped up rapidly in an environment where they are exposed to vast acreages of BT. Even the makers of BT-resistant corn admit that effective resistance will occur in about 25 years. Indiscriminate use of this technology will effectively remove BT, one of the main weapons in the artillery of organic farmers.

We can go on and on. How about Round-Up resistant corn and soybeans, which allows indiscriminate use of one of the most commonly used and environmentally benign herbicides on the market? Already Round-Up resistant weeds are appearing and will (relatively)soon render Round-Up useless.

Of course, gene recombination is a potentially powerful and useful technology, but in the free market its potential is sacrificed for short term profit. The government has proven to be an ineffective regulator of this technology, and I’m not sure it would be any more effective at regulating nanotechnology.

Kevin

]]> By: Joseph Angier http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/comment-page-1/#comment-3878 Joseph Angier Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:34:47 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/#comment-3878 Exactly. Advances in "social psychology" in the service of "framing information." Why not just say "propaganda," which despite what many people think, is only slightly less noxious when used to promote a cause that's considered "good." Exactly. Advances in “social psychology” in the service of “framing information.” Why not just say “propaganda,” which despite what many people think, is only slightly less noxious when used to promote a cause that’s considered “good.”

]]> By: Maria Powell http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/comment-page-1/#comment-3833 Maria Powell Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:08:59 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/12/public-nano-tudes/#comment-3833 Yes, I too am very concerned that the attempt to "frame controversial policy issues" so that people with diverse values can purportedly "derive the same factual information" from it is, as you say, awfully close to "brainwashing." Moreover, controversial science policy issues inherently involve considerable scientific uncertainties and unknowns, rather than solid, certain "facts." This isn't to say that the science and empirical evidence don't matter or shouldn't be taken into account. Rather, the critical questions, in my opinion, are: Whose "factual information" is the information framer trying to get the diverse publics out there to derive from the frames? Why? What do information framers have to gain (or lose) by trying to promote certain "factual information" over contrary/alternative information? Who has the most power to frame the information that is disseminated widely--and the ways it is framed? Which and whose "frames" are marginalized (or never heard) and why? Yes, I agree, I'd rather see free, full, diverse, even incredibly tense and emotional dialogues and debates than see everyone brainwashed to accept the "same factual information" promoted by whoever has the most power to frame it and disseminate it widely... Fortunately, I know enough about the diverse types of knowledges, cultures, race/ethnic perspectives, values, religions, demographic backgrounds, etc among the "publics" out there to be confident that regardless of how sophisticated social psychologists' theories get, they will probably never succeed in coming up with frames that prompt infinitely diverse publics to somehow "derive" the same "factual information" from them. Good thing, in my opinion, for democracy and freedom's sake...;-) Maria Powell Yes, I too am very concerned that the attempt to “frame controversial policy issues” so that people with diverse values can purportedly “derive the same factual information” from it is, as you say, awfully close to “brainwashing.”

Moreover, controversial science policy issues inherently involve considerable scientific uncertainties and unknowns, rather than solid, certain “facts.” This isn’t to say that the science and empirical evidence don’t matter or shouldn’t be taken into account. Rather, the critical questions, in my opinion, are: Whose “factual information” is the information framer trying to get the diverse publics out there to derive from the frames? Why? What do information framers have to gain (or lose) by trying to promote certain “factual information” over contrary/alternative information? Who has the most power to frame the information that is disseminated widely–and the ways it is framed? Which and whose “frames” are marginalized (or never heard) and why?

Yes, I agree, I’d rather see free, full, diverse, even incredibly tense and emotional dialogues and debates than see everyone brainwashed to accept the “same factual information” promoted by whoever has the most power to frame it and disseminate it widely…

Fortunately, I know enough about the diverse types of knowledges, cultures, race/ethnic perspectives, values, religions, demographic backgrounds, etc among the “publics” out there to be confident that regardless of how sophisticated social psychologists’ theories get, they will probably never succeed in coming up with frames that prompt infinitely diverse publics to somehow “derive” the same “factual information” from them. Good thing, in my opinion, for democracy and freedom’s sake…;-)

Maria Powell

]]>