reply to Rick archive 754+1 argument
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: reply to Rick archive 754+1 argument
- From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:37:12 +0100 (MET)
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-MD5: Wik/a09HxkvItPFsB2z5sQ==
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <"kaVIZB.A.sgE.NvW02"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: email@example.com
HLM wrote (archive 754) :
>>Those who have not been honest will be lynched.
Rick replied (sorry, I had no time to answer before, because of my work)
in post 754 :
>Herve, this is defamatory, inflammatory, and absurd. At least in some
>cities in the world, you could be charged with a crime if you called for
>lynching in public, and I suggest that you and Werner should be more
>careful about what you broadcast here.
First, I must apology : I certainly did not intend to promote lynching
in the physical meaning. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding : in french,
you can use "lynching" to mean that you refuse the right to speak any more.
That's exactly the meaning I had in mind.
All my apologies if I've said what I thought, in a (very) unpleasant way.
Yet, I maintain the fact that the rule of science is tough : Provided you
are right you can say a lot of things. But as soon as you prove to make
mistakes, as soon as you prove that you may be dishonet, you WILL not
be trusted any more. And, Science relies enormously on trusts. Those who
make peer reports know it.
That's why I maintain that if a scientist proves to be dishonnest, he
has to wiped out (it's metaphorical).
David Wengraf asked :
>>Why should this area of science be destroyed by badly-informed journalists
>>and public who have very little understanding of what genetic engineering
I answered :
>First because those who have this knowledge do not come in the city to
I apology : There are some who come, and so I should not have written
it like this. But a lot of specialists remain in their labs and some are
very dishonest : saying that GM is the very same as what has been done for
thousands of years proves to be *dishonest*. One proof : The legal
definition of the CE says GMO are produced in a way that nature
would not have used. I do lynch (metaphoricaly ;) ) all those scientists
who refuse that, precisely because they *should* know it more than I do,
as a non specialist. I would not lynch so much a non specialist.
But there is more deep : You write :
>Finally, it has become very clear to me that many opponents of GE crops are
>if anything far more willing than the multinationals they criticise to omit
>and distort facts to support their views, and have therefore lost the moral
>high ground to lecture the rest of us.
You seem not to be aware that there is a growing number of people who reject
the society as it works as a whole. Those from the natural law party (whom
I do not especialy like :) ) are an example.
What they are really thinking of,
is POLITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, and so on, but not only scientific. The one who
decides is the politic, not the expert, but the expert tries to get
the power. We refuse to let experts take decisions while we want a
political decision. So it is also a political issue. Because you are
an expert, you forget this difference, but please, decode their messages.
Yet I appreciate to have your opinion on these topics and
I recently had the same critics, toward an activist who wrote false
things, as the ones you have pointed later.
One argument :
Clive Elwell :
>>By the way,
>>>You also write, Rick:
>>>"because the current assessment process looks at the transgenic product
>>>What do you mean exactly by "looks at"?
Rick Roush :
>>"Tested" in animals. Simple, Clive.
>Not so simple. Monsanto is successfully applying to introduce GE foods into
>Australia/NZ which don't appear to have been tested in animals at all.
I agree with Clive Elwell :
As everybody knows, corn is put in a silo (don't know the word in english)
to be stored for some time (say months) and let it be transformed
through bacteria. To my knowledge, no experiment has ever been done
(in france) to
justify that the Bt, that is produced by *all parts of the plant*, does
not modify, through the effect of the bacteria in silos, the qualities of the
corn "put in silos" (don't know the word in english) with which one
Why the Bt would not be still efficient ? Why would not it continue
to be produced by the corn ?