Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





April 20, 2000


Multiple Contributions.....


- http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

From: "Paul Geiger"
Subject: Luddites and the modern world

To all subscribing to this list I would recommend Virginia Postrel's _The
Future and Its Enemies_. Also see "Reason" on line, www.reason.com. Ms
Postrel is the Editor-at-Large of "Reason" magazine.

Paul Geiger
From: "Paul Geiger"
Subject: Fw: GM Salmon

GM Salmon
I suspect, as does Livingstone, that not enough scientists and/or readers
of this news group have read Dawkins' works. Surely this is the case with
the anti-GMers!

Paul Geiger

r /> hostage to the press, which is equally unable to distinguish "junk science"
and pure falsehood from the rest. Accordingly, charlatans must be exposed as
often as they appear, for the common good.

Often, charlatans can be exposed through the simple expedient of showing that
they engage in charlatanry. Therefore, I consider my remark properly founded.

Ann Oaks wrote:

> As scientists we have learned to read and to critisize what we read. It
> is not necessary to include a biodata which is incomplete if it does not
From: "John W. Cross"
Subject: Re: Debate 2000'0420 a: Rebuttal of ISIS letter

At 01:31 PM 04/20/2000 -0400, Zeami2000@aol.com wrote:
>Will GM crops allow us as a species to
>ravage the planet some more? A sobering thought. Will it be used for
>high-minded purposes that are yet unrealized, and if I may point out, were
>never really on the table until placed in response to the protest movement .
> Q: Is not AgBioWorld the signatured response to ISIS?
>J Houseal

Houseal's message is unclear to me, but the following accusation seems to
state that proponents of crop breeding and genetic engineering lack motives
other than profit. His accusation suggests that he doesn't know such
people personally. If he did, he couldn't honestly make such a statement.

Nearly all of the scientists that I know who are involved in plant
biotechnology were initially motivated to study this area primarily by
humanistic values. Consider the alternatives: there are much more
lucrative areas in biotechnology, particularly medical research.

John Cross

7508 Milway Drive
Alexandria, VA 22306-2525
e-mail jwcross@erols.com (home)
Phone (703) 768-4455
FAX (815) 550-4412
Web Site http://www.erols.com/jwcross/
REPLY From:Joseph Houseal: Zeami2000@aol.com

I make no accusations but merely was pointing out that Roger's off the cuff
remark about the original domestication of wheat and rice allowing mankind to
multiply and ravage the world - held up a seed of what is serious in the
anti-biotech argument. He tossed it off as a sarcastic comment; I think it is
that and more.
There are people with many motives in many places. Most scientists I know
are fine people, but most everybody is a fine person. There is no moral high
ground aside from understanding. There is also a disctinction between the
ethics of scientists and those of their allies and those who apply their
From: Andrew Apel
Subject: Re: Debate 2000'0420 a: Rebuttal of ISIS letter by David McConnell

Dear Colleagues,

I am gratified to see a post in this group which so perfectly exemplifies the
validity of the term 'eco-reactionary.' A recrudescence of the romantic notions
left over from the "Green Wing" of the Nazi party.
- Andrew Apel

Zeami2000@aol.com wrote:

> If the antecedents of this group had had their way in the US in the mid
> 1970s all recombinant DNA reseach would have been banned and might never
> have recovered. If they had been influential in the 1950s I suspect they
> would have opposed the work of Norman Borlaug. If they had been alive
> 12,000 BP they would probably have banned the domestication of wheat and
> rice - which crops have been the prime force in allowing the human race to
> multiply and ravage this planet.

From: Alan McHughen
Subject: Re: 'Eco-Reactionary'

Andrew Apel wrote:
> After some thought, I settled on the term 'eco-reactionary,'...

I recently returned from a trip to South America, where I heard
Greenpeace referred to as a 'Multinational Eco-Corporation'.

The salient difference between a conventional corporation and an
eco-corporation being that conventional corporations are responsible to
their shareholders, while Greenpeace is responsible to no one.

Alan McHughen DPhil CBiol MIBiol
Professor and Senior Research Scientist
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Sk S7N 5A8