Re: The turning point project, archive 2378
- To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Subject: Re: The turning point project, archive 2378
- From: Rick Roush <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:58:54 +0930
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <199912150950.KAA17442@lan43.LANORS.MATUPS>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
>>In fact, hasn't the photo caption been cleverly worded to remain arguably
>>technically correct when challenged, but to persuade most readers to
>>believe something else?
>Yes, but the difference between the "reality" and the wording is much
>smaller than the one in ads from biotechs that claim GMO are strictly
>identical to normal plants.
>Do not you agree ?
(1) Show me such an example of a biotech ad; I have not seen anything that
we lead me to agree with you.
(2) It seems to me that you are arguing that "because the other guys lie, I
have the right to do so also". Do you really believe that?
>>Isn't it true that contrary to the implication of the ad, the mouse was not
>>created by a biotechnology company but by university researchers who do not
>>intend to genetically engineer anything, but were looking for a new medical
>YEAH !! and this proves (if it was still needed to prove it) that
>university are in the very same job as biotechs ! I think public
>scientists should think of it before major troubles !
Herve, I think this is very sad, that you would attack development of a
medical treatment, which as Heine has pointed out, probably doesn't even
involve any genetics beyond traditional breeding, and thereby attack the
reputations of university researchers who have not done anything that has
otherwise been criticised even on this list.