GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

Re: Re: The turning point project, archive 2378



Hi,

As my e-mails are sent on the list, I answer :

>>>.Rick wrote:
>>>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?
>>>
>
>>Herve replied:
>>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 ?
>
>Rick replies:
>(1) Show me such an example of a biotech ad; I have not seen anything that
>we lead me to agree with you.

First, you know that biotech claim (and have forced the FDA to claim all the 
same) that GMO=standard plants. It's the main argument against labelling.
Maybe it has not been written in an ad. But it's precisely because it
was claimed in small comittees where it was decided not to label.

Moreover, in France, there has been an ad saying that "formerly,
the peasan did mix
thousands of genes altogether, while, right now, we are able, thanks to 
GE, to insert precisely one gene in the genome".
I guess tha same was advertised in UK.

>(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?

No I don't. It's not what I said. Please, re-read what you quote yourself.
I said that the difference between the exact truth (fr which we are still 
waiting for the confirmation) and what was said was smaller in the ads of
turnpoint than in the ads of biotechs. This does not legitimate distortion.
But I consider the distortion in the turnpoint ad as very small.
Mainly compared to the distortion in the ads of biotechs (some of which have 
been condemned).


>
>
>>>Rick wrote:
>>>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
>>>treatment?
>
>>Herve replied:
>>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 !
>
>Rick replies:
>
>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.

I believe that the vision of humans as mechanisms is very usual in science 
because Science is (and must be) reductionist.
Yet this vision should remain in labs and not be propagated in society.

Moreover, one often reads that Science is pure and neither good nor bad.

It's very dishonnest because Science is driven by expectations and you know it.
So it is intrinsically linked to social, economical interests.

The point is that not only is it driven by social and political
expectations but it drives also these expectations. So, GE is also ONE
of the manifestations of how societies evolve (toward technical vision
of humans) and I disagre with this.
I would bet a lot of anti-GMO have this as a motivation. If those who never 
write
on this list want to post their opinion on it or send me an e-mail, I'll send 
the amount of them who agree.

That's why, indeed, topics involved by GMO are not only ecology and
alimentary questions.

In France some anti-GMO have a motto : "under GMO : Eugenism".

HLM