jeskill

I may have said this before, but I feel like this argument that "GM crops are unhealthy for humans" is a bit of a red herring that detracts from the real concerns about GM crops. I have no problem with genetic modification as a tool, but am wary about the socio-economic and ecological ramifications of our current industrial agricultural system, which relies heavily on hybrid and GM monocultures. EDIT to say: I don't think it's implausible that a GM crop could cause long-term health impacts. Especially if the GM crop is one that produces a pesticide -- we all know there are many pesticides that are hazardous to our health and so this shouldn't stretch the imagination. Currently, the evidence on this is weak, meanwhile, there are clear issues (other than human health) with GM crops that we should also be discussing. JMJones0424, while it's true that at the moment, Bt has seemed to decrease the amount of pesticides used in the world, it's also true that every year, more pests evolve resistance to Bt, even with the refuges that are supposed to "delay the evolution of resistance". (I do find it ironic that industrial ag is reduced to using ecological concepts to solve problems that they always seem to argue can be fixed with more technology.) And there's already a significant number of weeds that have evolved resistance to glyphosate, which has increased the amount of herbicides being used by keeping us on the "herbicide treadmill". (Pesticide treadmill -- same concept) IMO, we should be putting more of our effort into improving ecological agricultural techniques, and learn how to manage the populations of insects and competitor plants through complex ecosystem interactions and crop diversity.

Hi folks, So I have a four-year old, and I thought that this would be a good time to start introducing scientific concepts to him. (It's never too early.) I started with two books: 1) Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story by Lisa Westberg Peters and Lauren Stringer 2) Born with a Bang: The Universe Tells Its Cosmic Story by Jennifer Morgan and Dana Lynne Andersen Both are pretty good, and caught my kid's attention. We've read them multiple times, I actually really like Born With A Bang, because I don't have a strong astronomy/physics background and this book made the big bang and the origins of the solar system highly compelling by (I can't believe I'm saying this) anthropomorphizing the universe. I normally hate anthropomorphic characters (Cars and Madagascar really annoyed me) but for me, it worked in this story. Anyways, have any of you come across good science-related books for young children? If so, please feel free to share. As an aside, does anyone have a good children's book that describes one or many religions from more of an anthropological perspective rather than a believer's perspective? I found one, but it's a bit old for my kid, probably 10 and up. Edited because as usual, there are typos.

You seem to point to the answer (that I think is correct, anyways) at the end of your post. Humans are part of the ecosystem. Conservation plans don't work unless we take into consideration the role of the human population in the ecosystem. I work for a not-for profit that conserves wetlands. They are very successful, in part because they're supported by hunters. In essence, wetlands are being conserved so that hunters will have enough game to hunt. Some of my friends think this is immoral. I don't at all -- I think it's an entirely appropriate way to do conservation. If you get local people involved who have a stake in making sure the resource is conserved, then the resource will be more likely to be conserved.

To add to what CharonY is saying, this experiment was performed, and evolution via natural selection did occur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Remember, the original populations were genetically identical. These adaptations occurred via the following process: during replication, mistakes (mutations) occurred. Most were benign or deleterious, but the bacteria cells with mutations that allowed them better survival and reproduction compared to their non-mutated counterparts eventually dominated the system. This has occurred multiple times during the Lenski experiment. Edit to say: This is their official website. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

GM canola has been found at fairly high levels in the wild: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100806/full/news.2010.393.html

You're incorrect. The data shows that GM crops INCREASE the use of pesticides and herbicides. One reason why this has occurred is that when pesticide or herbicide resistance occurs on these plots (which is often), farmers use stronger, and more, chemicals, to deal with the problem. See here The current situation with regards to this is that refugia are often not used (often in developing countries), or if they are, they are often insufficient. Multiple resistance genes are not as effective as one might think: organisms do evolve resistance to them. But I do agree with you in that this is not solely a GM problem -- the pesticide treadmill is a problem that arises time and time again in conventional agriculture. Many cultures across the globe were/are slash and burn, including some South American cultures, as well as some North Americans (i.e. in what is now Mexico). But, it should be noted, that slash and burn is not always unsustainable, and requires a considerable amount of ecological knowledge on the part of the farmers. See here

Well, we might have to agree to disagree. I am strongly opposed to budget changes that decrease environmental protection, regardless of economic pressures. I think this is a short-term fix that has long-term negative implications for both our ability to innovate in the future and our ability to sustain our natural resources.

Jebus: To be fair, I started labeling the current party-in-power "anti-science" after I had the asbestos discussion with Gary Goodyear (described in the OP), after I learned of GG's misconceptions about evolution, after the long-form census was scrapped, and after a climate change scientist and a fisheries scientist were not allowed to discuss their findings with the public. That being said, I do think this recent budget shows very clearly that the current ruling party is not interested in scientific research that does not immediately benefit private businesses. A pro-science agenda, in my view, would be one that seeks to maximize all scientific inquiry that benefits all Canadians (not just businesses) now and in the future. JohnB: I understand your point in the first section, and I agree, for the most part. I think the reason why some Canadians are concerned about this is because there have been clear cases where scientific research has been suppressed by the government. I don't think that the ruling party should be allowed to suppress data that potentially affects Canadians. For example: It seems pretty clear that Harper is controlling the message because the scientists are churning out data with results that he doesn't like -- results that are "anti-business". Harper doesn't want there to be evidence out there that contradicts his policies. From you: I don't understand how something like this SHOULDN'T be public.The government is not a for-profit corporation. It's supposed to be working inthe best interests of the people that elected it. If they do things under the cloak of secrecy, how can the people hold them accountable?

Billions of dollars are being added to research and development? I disagree. First of all, Genomics Canada is NOT receiving an additional 60 million.Their previous annual budget was 160 million; their budget now is $60 million for the next two years. While NSERC has received more funding, that funding is mostly earmarked for "business-led, industry-leading research". It's all well and good to fund research that can be used to stimulate the private sector, but they're gutting basic research, environmental research, and environmental protection in the process. How is it pro-science to decrease funding for basic research and evidence-based environmental protection?

What do you mean "evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm". By neo-Darwinian paradigm, are you talking about the modern synthesis? Can you please describe the new paradigm of which you speak??

Awwww .... oh. I guess it's an acquired taste.

Here's some Stompin' Tom Conners for you all.

A link to the platform: T he Texas Republican Party official platform: A couple of other doozies: Early Childhood Development - We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development. UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Foster Care ― We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes. Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage. Smart Meters - We oppose the mandated use of Smart Meters as well as the use of collected data to reduce freedoms of U.S. citizens.. Edited due to formatting issues.

I agree with StringJunky. "Rational" needs to be defined. For example, are you asking if men's behaviour is affected moreso by conscious reasoning rather than experience? (i.e. are you saying that men use "rational choice theory" moreso than "heuristics"?) If this is the question, then I`d have to answer NO. Most people, men or women, use heuristics to make the majority of decisions. From an evolutionary perspective, heuristics are the better strategy because they allow for quick, decisive decisions, hence, this is what we do.

MyWifesSkin: Your first post seemed to insinuate a lot without actually clarifying your argument. So, I'm confused about what exactly your argument is. Are you suggesting that the prevalence of autism has increased due to vaccinations? Are you suggesting that there is a tendency to over-diagnose autism? Or are you suggesting that there is a tendency to over-prescribe medications for autism? This statistic seems to come from a really interesting population-wide study on autism. It is noted that, (Non-sequitor... I would have assumed the NY Times used Times New Roman as their font, instead they use Georgia. Weird.)

Kind of related ... There was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently that discussed why humans deny science (not just Republicans). An excerpt:

I have no idea how your first two paragraphs relate to the previous posts, other than to ad hominem attack views that disagree with your own. As for the third, I fail to see how studying the impacts of cage aquaculture (which is a huge industry in Canada), mercury and nanosilver on the ecosystem is unimportant. Furthermore, the Canadian government is not "developing" new fighter jets. They are buying F-35 fighter jets from the United States.

I was told by a little bird that during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it's very common that the ribs break. Is this true?

I think that the point John Cuthber was making is that contributing genes to the child does not automatically make someone a parent. Parenting a child makes someone a parent. You may think that your long line of grandparents are genetically linked, but it's entirely plausible that somewhere along the line, an adoption occurred that eventually led to your genes continuing along.

Does this happen in other "democratic" countries? Should it? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/06/14/ns-parks-canada-letter-warning.html

I second immortal's concern. On a side note, I'm sad I'm not going to ESA this year . Immortal, if you're interested in this issue, you may want to check out the NWAEG meeting held right after ESA in Portland.

Apologies. I don't know why "it" wasn't working yesterday, but it does today. Darn internets… J Of course, I agree that we have to be able to produce enough to feed the people. My argument is that yield is not as important a metric as food security, and that by focusing on yield, we promote policies that, ironically, DON'T feed the people in much of the world. For example, we produced 2197.1 million metric tonnes of grains in 2010. If we assume there was roughly 7 billion people in 2010 (which is, I think, an overestimate), then, had yield been the determining factor in food security, each person would have been allotted 692/12 = ~57 pounds of grains per month. Americans eat, on average, 15 pounds of grains per month. If yield were the most important factor affecting starvation (edited this word), no one would have lacked for grains in 2010. US, Canada, and other top producers are subsidizing the OVERPRODUCTION of grains and are too focused on yield. This has, ironically, caused more food insecurity in countries in the Global South like Haiti and Ethiopia. For example, excess cereal crops grown unsustainably in the US at a subsidized rate is shipped over as free "food aid", or is sold so cheaply it undercuts local prices, thus undermining local food economies. Overproduction also leads to food crops being used for biofuels instead of food, which, I hope you can agree, is ridiculously inefficient. Questions for you: Why do you think countries at the bottom of your list don't produce enough to feed their people? How do you think industrial agriculture would benefit countries that can't afford to subsidize the costs of fertilizers, pesticides, and designer seeds? How do you think industrial agriculture will "solve" the issue of its own unsustainability? 1) In the US, Europe, and Canada,the number of "organic" farms is growing pretty fast, so your assumption that farmers aren't adopting it is incorrect. I should point out that the majority of organic growers are young (around 35 years old) while the majority of conventional growers are older (around 55 years old). Data: Organic farming growth in the US, in Europe, and in Canada. 2) The reason it's hard for conventional farmers in the Global North to switch over is because most countries with money (i.e.Canada, US, European countries), subsidize industrial agriculture so that it's profitable. If the price of fertilizer, pesticide and hybrid seeds weren't subsidized, OR if the farmer had to consider the cost of the environmental damage they create, then industrial agriculture wouldn't be profitable. I should also point out that many of the organic regulations are prohibitive for small farmers, hence the number of "organic" farms is underestimated, at least in the U.S. I know a number of farms near where I live that are organic, but never bothered to get the certification because it was too expensive. Quote below from ifoam.

I'd like to respond, but this link doesn't work.

This is the problem with the word "organic", and why I think "sustainable agriculture", or "ecological agriculture" are better terms for the ideal that people who study this issue are going for. The Irish went from a complex polyculture with organic fertilizer inputs (that included seaweed!) to a simple monoculture. IOW, they went from sustainable ecological agriculture to the "industrial agriculture" model, just lacking the capital inputs. This trend -- transitioning from a complex sustainable polyculture to an unsustainable simple monoculture that cannot grow crops due to a lack of subsidies for capital inputs -- is what we've seen throughout "developing" nations (i.e. The Global South) in the past century, and it's very much related to the current debate concerning how we should be growing our food. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I gave you plenty of evidence that supports the notion that organic farming does improve yield in this (albeit ridiculously long post): http://www.sciencefo...post__p__678309 Links please? I'd love to read these. Evolutionary theory would also suggest that the small organic farms, by continuing to be a refuge for "pests", actually benefit the non-organic farms by reducing the selection pressure on said pests and reducing the probability of pesticide-resistance evolving. This is total b.s. Sorry, but if we're going to have any hope of solving the current issues surrounding agriculture, then we can't just focus on "yield", which is the main focus of populationists and proponents of corn subsidies. The past century has shown us that clearly, focusing on yield DOES NOT stop hunger (If it did, then no one would be hungry right now. The world currently grows enough food for all people in the world, if it were distributed equitably). If we're going to solve any issues concerning hunger and agriculture, then we need to consider the whole picture, which includes economic sustainability, ecological sustainability, politics, and social impact. Apologies for inserting myself into an interesting vaccine conversation, but I couldn't help myself.

AMEN. Although... if manatees didn't exist, we wouldn't have this song! And then I'd be sad.