The Gastrocast Forum

[erdnase]

PodChef's commentary on a story about researchers who are attempting to grow meat in the lab (sans animals!):

"I believe science is destroying the universe one experiment at a time." PodChef

"Scientists, otherwise known as morons" PodChef

As someone who came to support both the sustainability and environmental communities through exposure to both the popular and scientific literature on these issues, I was really taken back by these statements in podacast #117. Our world is threatened by irrational thought on every level, from fundamental religious ideologies, to the unsustainable short-term greed of some big business. Rationality and science are the ONLY tools we have to combat their harmful ideas and practices. Otherwise it is simply dogma vs. dogma.

Science is not a belief system. It is not inherently good, bad, creative or destructive. Science is simply a reasoned process for describing the natural world and constantly testing those descriptions to see if they hold true. Whether you're comparing yields on pruned tomato plants vs. unpruned tomato plants, or comparing disparate DNA strands for commonalties... you're doing science.
We can not embrace a scientific study that shows organic and sustainable farming practices yield the same or better results than conventional practices, and then thumb our nose at the rigorous methodologies and disciplined individuals that prove these points.

Western modern media has done much to confuse the public about the role of science in world. Painting it as either a panacea, or out-of-control demon. When we confuse science with research and development we are falling into a similar heuristic trap.

While I will continue to enjoy, respect and support the Gastrocast, in this matter I'll cast my lot with Ben Franklin, Carl Linnaeus, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, E.O Wilson and the thousands of other farmers/scientists of this and past generations.

Erdnase

[Podchef]

I admit to vastly over simplifying issues to prompt a reaction. Now that the dialectic has been engaged lets look at why I said what I said.

Firstly, and not to excuse my hyperbole, I was actually referring to the sort of erroneous scientific practice which leads scientists to think of and create experiments which do not need doing--just because we can doesn't mean we should. Can we create meat in a countertop lab? Sure. Should we? Why bother, let's focus on skin grafts, repairing heart tissue, etc not creating meat no one will eat to solve a problem which could be more easily solved by changing animals' diets back to a more natural, less grain based diet, and treating them far more humanely. So while I intrinsically believe my statement in the show to be true, they were focused on the specific spurious science represented by the article I was commenting on.

Now. I am a simple man. You will have to help me see the light as to why certain "sciences"--to try and clarify things--(and the scientists behind them) are not "destroying the universe one experiment at a time. From where I sit on my island, it sure appears that Science in general and scientist have gone beyond the pale.

I believe in and am a student of the "Scientific Method". I rely on it, exactly as you say, through observance of natural processes to determine tomato crop yield, pasture forage limits, timing the cooking of soup ingredients and steak, for example. But something I have observed in all the disciplines of "Science"--astronomy, physics, pharmaceuticals, animal sciences, health, and industrial food science, to name some--is that scientific method does NOT seem to be being followed. Countless reports come to light where companies rushed the science to get something into production and jumped from theory and hypothesis to practice with very little experimentation and limited observation. This bothers me and leads me to feel the way I do.

Certainly there is much which science has done for humanity over time. I am the first to admit that. But starting with Descartes and leading to the Positivists of the 30's Scientists have relied on their own flawed reasoning far too much. Sure, rational though and reason are the most important things we have today to solve our problems--if they remain just that, Rational and Reasonable. But countless times Rationality and Reason in the sciences have been relied on to justify destructive methodiologies--learn to split the atom and we get the atomic bomb and a source of energy which is so potentially dangerous whole sections of the planet are too toxic to inhabit. How can I not think scientist and their science are destroying the universe?

As before, I do believe scientists in their specific scientific fields are aimed at doing good, but somehow they constantly overshoot the target. In the creation of a heart medication scientists discover a powerfully sweet substance, not the beneficial drug they intended. And without testing, experimenting and observing the outcome of its various uses it is put into production and fed to millions of people on a daily basis. Later reports of the dangers of its use are covered up. The health disasters it represents are only just now being uncovered, and yet it is still in production and "science" is still justifying its use. Aspartame is but one such instance of many.

I hope I do not seem like some closed minded Neanderthal and that if anyone can exonerate "Science" to me, I would be happy to change my opinions--or at least clarify and adapt them. And again, when I am thinking of "Science" I am thinking scientists working on molecular levels, doing nasty things with dna, creating new chemicals, etc, and not those--for the most part--working in the natural sciences. Sure some natural scientists create and advocate the use of things like artificial fertilizers, pesticides, gm crops, Paylean fat inhibitor for hogs, etc. These scientists seem to me follow on the work of the first group. Perhaps a simplistic view, but that is how it seems from here on the island.

Just as in other professions--whether you are building a bridge, moving a house, rescuing a habitat, or tilling new land--you must provide an environmental and/or financial impact study. But why not with the sciences? Why was there no reasoned and rational study as to the long term and possible outcomes of Female Hormone Therapy? You can't tell me that they just didn't think of it? That only makes it worse. Worse that they didn't realize pumping women with hormones to stop their hot flashes would contribute to an ecological nightmare of feminized creatures in the environment. That combined with estrogen from birth control would exacerbate the pollution of waterways. Scientists are supposed to be smarter than that. They are the ones who are supposed to hypothesize , theorize, predict and prove or prevent outcomes. Yet they don't. Many of their experiments make life on this planet far worse in irrevocable ways. And don't get me started on Weather & Climate Control--without any perception of the possible outcome cloud seeding and worse has become common place for private companies. How can we allow the fast-paced shifting from theory to tampering with barely understood global weather patterns? Someone has to speak out. Science, and some who practice it, are off the track and making it harder for valid efforts to correct the damage before it is too late.

So this is where I was coming from when I said what I said. It might not be right and it might be over-simplified, but it is good to get it out into the open and debate. Thanks for calling me out on it.
_________________
Keep on Cookin'!

http://kitchengardens.net

[sjones71]

I think that there is key distinction being made here that is crucial to understand.

Remember that science is a process and not its own belief system. Erdnase points this out, really in what I think is one of the best definitions of science I have seen. Podchef, the thing that you are opposing it seems is not science, but the application of scientific (sometimes pseudo-scientific) findings. You hate the research and development that comes from misguided approaches to food etc. that are won via science. But do not be fooled into the game of denigrating science itslef or all scientists.

Scientists, or specifically people who are applying scientifc findings for agribusiness (or any other villanous industry), can not be your general picture of scientists no more than farmers who whore themselves to agribusiness or government subsidy can be my general picture of farmers.

Let science be. Go ahead and attack specific groups of scientists or researchers who are abusing science, but do not abuse the process itself. It is coldly impartial, but awfully handy when it proves (for example) that organic vegetables are better for you. So handy that a scientific study like that might get mentioned on certain podcasts about food, cooking, farming and the politics of what we eat...
_________________
Consequences shmonsequences... as long as I'm rich.
- Daffy Duck

[jaimekent]

Bit of a phylosophical debate going on here (which is great) and one that is eternally contentious!!!

I can see where you are all coming from, and believe strongly that providing science is used in the right way, for the right reasons - and not to push the boundaries beyond usefulness (or to the detriment of something natural/good) or just to prove something nigh on impossible can be achieved - it can be worthy of respect from us mere mortals!

What I cannot tolerate, however, is when science (and the knowledge built up through our forefathers) is abused, and the intellectual capital of the nation is plundered on ridiculous experiments that add little or no value to the common cause.

Sure, science is a process, but one that needs careful nurturing and constant reflection upon morality; otherwise the views of honorable men (and women) will naturally bend towards believing science is more destructive than good.

Jaime.
_________________
Dig for Victory!