1
9

[–] pepepepepe 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Okay, now to do it with proper ethical procedure. Should be just as effective if it's truly as repeatable as the study states, right?

1
9

[–] PassingShip 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

That's the ideal. I can't imagine why they thought this was an ok thing to do. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[–] [deleted] 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] Beers 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Duh libruls aren't the only ones paralyzed by new science. Remember, the "other team" has a bunch of people that believe in dieties and an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old. Anti-intellectualism is not a problem exclusive to liberals, which is what you're implying!

0
2

[–] Bfwilley 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Got to get those duck in a row!

2
2

[–] Vailx 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Golden rice sounds like a great thing, and I'm sad at the way this went, but I'm also sad at the intended deception. Here's the process:

1)- People start genetically modifying some foods.
2)- Some people don't like this and say it is bad.
3)- Anyone genetically modifying foods jumps through hoops to avoid saying that their food is genetically modified.

See how that (3) point is an issue? Doesn't it inherently speak of malice if they are hiding this fact? The arguments in favor of this obfuscation seem to be that if GMOs are labelled at any point, then this will be used as a reason to reject them by those who are ignorant of the benefits- that the only way to help these poor ignorant fools is to hide the truth from them. That is so arrogant as to be unspeakable- "well, people are onto us, so dissembling intensifies!"

Anyway, shame how this is going on all fronts. Absolute shame. I'm pretty damned sure that rice will eventually save a lot of lives.

0
6

[–] AzureNova 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

As a counterpoint, the fact that so many foods are 'gluten free' now has less to do with gluten's evil but rather public misconception.

And for a moral question - if you have full knowledge that stating a truthful statement X will lead people to believe a false belief Y, ethically speaking, is it still honest to proclaim statement X?

2
0

[–] ghotioninabarrel 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

While specific wording could be arguable, when you get to the point of faking documents you should realize you're fucking up.

3
3

[–] Beers 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Then again, when you're feeding the world's poor and needy through scientific innovation, will you have much patience for politicized paperwork?

0
9

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

With an organization like Greenpeace trying to stop you from doing so, that's exactly the time to be crossing your Ts and dotting your Is. Slipups only give them more ammo in their "Frankenfood is teh DEBIL!" warchest.

3
-3

[–] PrivateJoker 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

if they really cared about these starving kids, they would have given them free vitamins 20 years ago