“Junk science” has been junked

Have you seen the charge that some scientist’s work is “junk science” lately?

It always frosted me when I read an op-ed or letter to the editor that charged that some widely accepted scientific work was “junk science”.  “Junk science” is a contradiction.  If it is “junk” then it is not science.  If it is science, then it is not “junk”.  Science is postulating a hypothesis and then testing it.  If a number of scientists can replicate the tests, then the hypothesis can start to be called a theory.

A good example of a hypothesis that couldn’t be replicated was “cold fusion”.  A single lab coming up with a drug to cure whatever is not really proven until hundreds or even thousands of cases can demonstrate the drug gives the desired results.

I think that those who promoted the idea that the mounting evidence of global warming was “junk science” have finally decided that it was a poor phrase to promote their own interest in a denial of global warming.

I was inspired to write this blog by Dr. Phil Plait’s introduction to “50 popular beliefs that people think are true” by Guy P. Harrison:

“The basic property that makes science science is that it’s self-checking.  You don’t just make an assumption; you test it.  You see if it works the next time you use it. And you don’t assume because it did, it always will.”

And for people who dismiss scientific research with, “It is only a theory”, I hope they don’t walk off any cliffs because gravity is only a theory.

GMO producers don't want free markets

Susan K. Finston has written an op-ed piece on GMO products and labeling in many places, including the Fresno Bee, "FDA shouldn't order costly GMO labels".  I read it in the Duluth News Tribune was part of one the DNT's Pro and Con pairings.  See https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=36&article_id=236256.  It was published in many newspapers across the country on 2012-07-07.  The DNT published only two letters on her article, both in opposition.  One was mine that was titled by the editor as "Lack of information spells doom for free markets – and possibly people".  See https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=36&article_id=237319.  The text is :

Free markets are disappearing, and it is free-market proponents who are taking them away.

The classic definition of a free market is:
Many buyers and many sellers.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make an advantageous transaction.
All costs are covered in the transaction; that is, there are no externalities.

In this letter I want to cover a third point: all the information needed. This was ignored by Susan K. Finston in her Pro/Con commentary, “FDA shouldn’t order costly GMO labels just to satisfy scientific illiterates,” which was published in the News Tribune on July 7.

The top story on an online search for “GMO deaths” is about sudden cattle deaths at a small ranch in Texas. However, it was hybrid grass that produced cyanide after a couple of drought years that caused the deaths.  If a hybrid grass can do this, how do we know that a GMO grass won’t do the same?

As to be expected, most of the hits led to “sensationalist” sites, those with a cause; they only repeated stories from elsewhere. I added, “Union of Concerned Scientists” to my search and found a much more credible report: “Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops — Recent Experiences,” by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

“No major human health problems have emerged in connection with genetically modified food products,” Mellon and Rissler reported. But a company put a Brazil nut gene into soybeans to increase the latter’s nutritional quality.  Experiments showed that people allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the altered soybeans.

Some allergic reactions are fatal. Would you rather eat foods you know don’t give you a reaction? Or would you like being surprised by a fatal ingredient? Labeling is important!

Don't like Washington? Look in the mirror!

I'm kind of with Pete Seeger who sang "Our leaders are the finest men, we elect them again and again".  And I feel just as sarcastic as he did when he wrote this in "What did you learn in school today?"

Basically we elect those who bring home the bacon, those who look out for local interests even when not in the national interest.  And we've been doing it for over 200 years to the dismay of many of the writers of the Constitution.  See "The Radicalization of the American Revolution", Gordon S. Wood.

For a more lengthy screed on this conflict of interest, see "I don't blame Congress; I blame you!", Andrew Heaton.

To be or not to be a government employee

…or to have been or not to have been a government employee.

Many so-called conservatives constantly complain about government employees, especially those at lower levels who are "feeding at the public trough".  If government employees can do nothing right, why are so many Republicans clamoring to be government employees?  Or their large corporation bedfellows clamoring for government contracts?

Now we have an interesting attack from so-called liberals on former government employees who have taken jobs in large corporations.  See "EXPOSED: Fox News, BP, And Goldman Sachs Don't Want You To Know About This" http://www.upworthy.com/exposed-fox-news-bp-and-goldman-sachs-dont-want-you-to-know-about-this, Sara Critchfield, Upworthy, 2012-04-23.  The article shows overlapping circles  of government employees moving to corporate jobs, whether appointed or elected officials.  People in both parties have done this.

These moves sound fishy and maybe some are fishy.  On the other hand, if you are, say a geologist, who is most likely to hire you - an oil company.  Does every government expert in every field start out as a government employee for life?  No, they often build up credentials in corporations or academia, serve for a few years in government, often at lower pay, and then go back to a corporation or a university.

This is the problem with taking sides on political issues.  Too much is at stake to open oneself to a broader view of issues.  As a result, sound bites become the "facts" and few look at a problem thoroughly.