Re: WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?
From: Dr. Jai Maharaj (usenet_at_mantra.com)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: black holes and intelligent design"
- Previous message: Borek: "Re: Is this acceptable Chemical English?"
- Maybe in reply to: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:40:59 GMT
WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?
Forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com>
[ Subject: Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?
[ From: Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005
Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?
Michael Meacher told a public conference on Science,
Medicine and the Law in the strongest terms that we need
independent science and scientists who take the
precautionary principle seriously and sweeping changes are
needed in science funding and scientific advice to the
government that ensures the protection of independent
science
Which scientists?
Nobody disagrees that debate over whether we should go ahead
with new technologies should be conducted on the basis of
science, but which science? Independent science or
industrial science? Let me test out a few examples on you.
Fifteen years ago a lorry driver accidentally tipped 20
tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the public drinking supply
in north Cornwall -- nearby residents and local doctors are
convinced they were poisoned; but two Government enquiries
found no evidence. Whom do you believe?
There are childhood leukaemia clusters in villages down the
Cumbrian coast -- local residents and independent scientists
think it is the consequence of chronic exposure to low-level
radiation from nearby Sellafield; but the Department of
Industry (DTI) and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) think it is
nothing to do with local nuclear power stations -- their best
explanation is that it is caused by high levels of inward
and outward migration. Whom do you believe?
Mark Purdey, a Somerset farmer turned epidemiologist, has
produced detailed evidence to show that BSE was caused by
farmers spreading Phosmetz, an organohosphate (OP), over the
backs of cattle as a prophylaxis, but the Government's MRC
Toxicology Unit - funded by the pharmaceutical company
Zeneca - apparently refuted this theory. Which company held
all rights over the production of Phosmetz? Zeneca. Whom do
you believe?
Gulf War Syndrome has been a persistent disabling, and
sometimes lethal, condition since the first war in Kuwait in
1991. Both UK and US soldiers and their independent
scientific advisers are convinced that the soldiers were
poisoned by the OP insecticides that they were liberally
sprayed with. But the MOD and chemical companies insist
there is no evidence for this. Whom do you believe?
Well, if you have any doubts, look at what has actually
happened in the past when Government, in the teeth of
overwhelming evidence, have often finally been forced to
back track from entrenched positions that they always said
were supported scientifically.
Science can quite often get things wrong.
Which science?
Government biologists initially refused to accept that power
stations in Britain or Germany could kill fish or trees
hundreds of miles away in Scandinavia; later the idea of
acidification caused by SO 2 was universally accepted.
Government scientists originally did not agree that
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the ozone layer;
but during the 1987 negotiations on the Montreal Protocol
the industry -- ICI and Du Pont -- abruptly changed sides, and
ministers and scientists soon fell into line alongside them.
The Lawther working party of Government scientists roundly
rejected any idea that health-damaging high levels of lead
in the blood came overwhelmingly from vehicle exhausts, only
to find that after lead-free petrol was introduced, blood-
lead levels fell 70%.
The Southwood committee of BSE scientists insisted in 1990
that scrapie in cattle could not cross the species barrier,
only to find by 1996 that it did just that. And there are
many more examples.
Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle
The only way to deal with these problems is by applying the
precautionary principle. Perhaps the classic formulation of
the precautionary principle was at the Rio Summit in 1992
principle 15: "in order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
That principle survived renegotiation attempts during the
Johannesburg Summit in September 2002, and was reaffirmed in
the Plan of Implementation that resulted from the Summit.
Why has this not been adopted by scientists and policy-
makers? There can be only one reason: cynicism of not
disturbing powerful political and economic interests.
It is highly disturbing to realise how long it takes for
poisonous chemicals to be banned after scientific evidence
emerged that they were harmful.
* Benzene was demonstrated as powerful bone marrow poison in 1897
* Acute respiratory effects of asbestos was identified 1898
* The ability of PCB to induce chloracne was documented in 1898
But it was not until 1960-70s that significant progress was
made in restricting damages caused by these agents.
Independent scientists vilified
Efforts were made to discredit independent critics, as in
the case of Richard Lacey and Mark Purdey in BSE, & Arpad
Pusztai in GM food, and too many other examples.
Data and reports have been regularly suppressed or
publishers intimidated, as in the Great Lakes chemical case.
The Southwood Committee on BSE believed a ban on the use of
all cattle brains in human food chain might be justified,
but considered that politically unfeasible.
There was also incompetence: the Department of Health was
not informed by MAFF (the then Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, now disbanded) about the emergence of
new disease (BSE) until 17 months after MAFF was first
alerted.
Pervasive mistrust of science and scientists
No wonder that there is a pervasive mistrust of science and
scientists. But the roots for this go deep.
First, the Rothschild revolution under Thatcher made the
funding of science much more subservient to business
interests. Over the past two decades, getting finance for
scientific inquiry inimical to the commercial and political
establishments has become increasingly difficult. The
science is owned by a tiny number of very large companies
and they only commission research which they believe will
further their own commercial interests. And when that turns
out not to be the case, as when research turns up results
which may be embarrassing to the company, they are most
often dubbed "commercially confidential" and never
published.
In addition, companies have learned that small investments
in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programmes or hiring
professors for out-of-hours projects can produce
disproportionate payoffs in generating reports, articles,
reviews and books, which may not be in the public interest,
but certainly benefit corporate bottom lines. The effects of
corporate generosity - donating millions for this research
laboratory or that scientific programme -- can be subtly
corrosive. Other universities regard the donor as a pote
ntial source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said
which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities. And
academics raising embarrassing questions (as they should) -
such as who is paying for the lab; how independent is the
peer review; who profits from the research; is the
university's integrity compromised? -- would soon learn that
keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their
career, let alone future research funding. The message is
clear: making money is good, and dissent is stifled.
Commerce and the truth don't readily mix.
A second reason why there is such pervasive mistrust of
science and scientists is that the scientists staffing the
official advisory committees and Government regulatory
bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links
with the industry they are supposed to be independently
advising on and regulating. A recent study found that of the
five scientific committees advising ministers on food and
safety, 40% of committee members had links with the
biotechnology industry, and at least 20% were linked to one
of the Big Three -- Monsanto, AstraZeneca, or Novartis. Nor
is that an accident. The civil servants who select
scientists for those bodies tend to look for a preponderant
part of the membership, and particularly the chairperson, to
be `sound', i.e., can be safely relied on not to cause
embarrassment to the Government or industry if difficulties
arise.
Third, the culture of spin and intimidation is far more
pervasive than should ever be allowed. The shocking sacking
and vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, when he produced GM
research results inconvenient to the Government, bio-tech
industry and the Americans, was no doubt, deliberately
intended as a warning to others if they stepped out of line.
And the threats and insinuations made clear to the only two
independent scientists on the UK Government's GM Science
Panel, Dr Carlo Leifert and Andrew Sterling, demonstrates
all too clearly how viciously the Establishment will fight
to safeguard its own interests.
And on spin, how many times have we heard the false argument
that is still regularly deployed by ACRE, the Government's
main GM advisory committee, when it announces that, "there
is no evidence that this GM product is any greater risk to
human health than its non-GM counterpart". In fact they have
not sought such evidence directly, merely relied on the
biotech companies telling them that their GM product was
`substantially equivalent' to its alleged non-GM analogue.
Fourth, science is not, and never has been, a value-free
search for the truth. It is a social construct influenced by
a variety of rules, peer group pressures, and personal and
cultural expectations. It is developed, like all human
thought, from preconceived built-in judgements, assumptions
and dogmas, the more powerful because they are often
unconsciously held.
So what is to be done?
What all this means is that science can only be fully
trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures
that guarantee total independence and freedom from
commercial and political bias. That is far too often not the
case today. The implications for policy are clear.
One, if the Government truly wants independent research, it
has to be prepared to pay for it, not lay down, as it has,
that 25% of finance for publicly funded research should come
from private sources, thus forcing the universities into the
hands of corporate sponsors.
Two, the Government should also require that no member of
its advisory committee or regulatory bodies should have any
current or recently past financial or commercial link with
the industry concerned.
Three, contributors to scientific journals should be
required to make full disclosure of current and prior
funding sources, so that any conflicts of interest can be
exposed and taken into account.
Four, we need above all a Government with the political
gumption to stand up to the United States and those
demanding calls from the White House, to stand up to the
biotech companies, and to stand up to big business, and make
clear that there will be no succumbing to dominant political
/economic interests, e.g. no growing of GM crops in this
country until proper, systematic, independent, peer-reviewed
research, which is totally absent at present, has been
carried through and made public which demonstrates beyond
any reasonable doubt whether GM foods are safe or not.
We should never forget the words of Winston Churchill, who
said "Science should be on tap, not on top".
This is an edited version of Michael Meacher's keynote
address to the Green Network Conference, Science, Medicine
and the Law, 31 January to 2 February 2005, Royal Institute
of British Architecture, London, UK, which will be published
in issue 26 of Science in Society (www.i-sis.org.uk )
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation
dedicated to providing critical public information on
cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability
and ecological sustainability in science.
If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML
please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our
mailing list unsubscribe at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/unsubscribe.php
CONTACT DETAILS
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London
NW1 OXR
Telephone - 44 20 8452 2729; 44 20 7272 5636
End of forwarded message from Fidyl <fidyl@yahoo.com>
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
PROFILE OF ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ aka 'Uncle Al' <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
There's more information about Alan Schwartz
in the public archives at:
[ Subject: Profile: Schwartz, Alan
[ From: serialkiller90002@hotmail.com
[ Newsgroups: sci.physics
[ Date: 21 Mar 2004 13:34:46 -0800
[ Message-ID: <b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.11.26.150
[ X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079904887 30505 127.0.0.1
[ (21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 GMT)
[ NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:34:47 +0000 (UTC)
[
[
[ Name: Schwartz, Alan
[ Country: USA
[ Residential Address: SANTA ANA, CA 92705
[ Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&countryid=250&addtohistory=&address=&city=SANTA+ANA&state=CA&zipcode=92705&submit=Get+Map
[ Postal Address:
[ Alan Schwartz
[ 49 Fabriano
[ P.O. Box 005
[ Irvine, CA 92620-2525
[ E-mail(s): uncleal0@ix.netcom.com, UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com
[ Tel: 714-771-2526 (+1 714 771 2526 for international callers)
[ Spouse: Jackie Schwartz
[ Spouse Occupation: Para-legal
[ Spouse workplace: <pending disclosure>
[
[ ISP: http://www.earthlink.net
[ Email: http://support.earthlink.net/support/MYACCT/forms/csform.jsp
End of forwarded message from
Or,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b31a8173.0403211334.25f9abc5%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
In article <43d9f575.0408101155.15fe136e@posting.google.com>,
eagleson2004123@yahoo.com posted:
> > EXPOSED - Lying scum and stalker 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz"
> <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > How to handle stalkers and
> > 'Uncle Al' aka "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > [ Subject: How to handle stalkers and Uncle Al
> > [ From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutoniu@willinet.net>
> > [ Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.archaeology
> > [ Message-ID: <3A6128B1.7ED158B6@willinet.net>
> > [ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001
> > [
> > [
> > [ Ryan Doherty wrote:
> > [
> > [ > Uncle Al (24.16.181.181),
> > [ >
> > [ > I am consider this message of yours SPAM, so please
> > [ > keep your childish postings to yourself!
> > [ > By the way, Grow up.. you are wasting more bandwidth
> > [ > with your repeated responces that Archimedes and his
> > [ > questions!
> > [ >
> > [ > Ryan
> > [
> > [ > Ryan, you are talking to a fence post when you talk to
> > [ > Uncle Al. He and his motley crew of cohorts have stalked
> > [ > me for years. In fact they have stalked me nonstop for 7
> > [ > years now.
> > [ >
> > [ > Uncle Al feels he is a police cop of sci.chem and
> > [ > sci.physics and wants to chase out any poster he does not
> > [ > like. Many chemistry professors have put Al Schwartz into
> > [ > their killfile. That is about the only real solution.
> > [ >
> > [ > Some say Al Schwartz is a failed chemistry professor of
> > [ > 80s in age living in Tallahassee Florida or Denton Texas.
> > [ > He is old, cranky with nothing to do but post to the
> > [ > Internet. He feels a righteous duty to stalk me. No
> > [ > matter if I post pure chemistry to sci. chem or pure
> > [ > physics to sci.physics, Uncle Al feels that none of my
> > [ > posts belongs to those newsgroups.
> > [ >
> > [ > He has set himself up as a self righteous self imposed
> > [ > police cop of sci.chem.
> > [ >
> > [ > Many other people have complained about Uncle Al in sci.
> > [ > chem.
> > [ >
> > [ > SOLUTION: the only solution that I can see is to killfile
> > [ > Uncle Al and all Al supporters. And to add sci.chem and
> > [ > sci.physics to all of your posts to the Internet. Let
> > [ > Uncle Al stalk you everywhere, not just sci. chem or sci
> > [ > physics. Make it so that everyday Uncle Al wakes up, his
> > [ > chores and work are to stalk people on the Internet. Make
> > [ > it such that the essence of life for Uncle Al will now be
> > [ > to stalk 1 or 3 or 20 or 117 people every day.
> > [ >
> > [ > So, I am asking of all those people on the Internet who
> > [ > have been attacked by Uncle Al, to give Uncle Al what he
> > [ > craves. Add sci.chem and sci.physics to all of your
> > [ > Internet posts. And killfile Uncle Al.
> > [ >
> > [ > Uncle Al is already a crackpot and is insane, but drive
> > [ > him wildly insane.
> > [ >
> > [ > Force him to waste minutes and hours every day of his
> > [ > life stalking you.
> > [ >
> > [ > And you just sit back and laugh at how the idiot Uncle Al
> > [ > is making himself a monkey idiot.
> > [ >
> > [ > Last year someone emailed me saying that sci.chem was
> > [ > back to normal and that Uncle Al had been put under
> > [ > sedation and it was safe to post to sci.chem again.
> > [ > Sci.chem was flooded by outsiders because Uncle Al had
> > [ > pissed them off.
> > [ >
> > [ > Well, that is not the way to handle the self imposed
> > [ > sci.chem police dog of Uncle Al. The way to handle Uncle
> > [ > Al and other stalkers like him is to "killfile them" and
> > [ > then force them to stalk you all over the Internet. Let
> > [ > everyone see what a fool he is, not just sci.chem folk.
> > [ >
> > [ > I wish that someone is archiving all of the Uncle Al
> > [ > stalks of Archimedes Plutonium. I have him killfiled and
> > [ > so I have zero. But I would imagine that Uncle Al has
> > [ > about 500 posts per year of attacks.
> > [ >
> > [ > So, I ask everyone who knows Uncle Al, to add sci. chem
> > [ > to their Internet posts and to killfile Uncle Al. Let the
> > [ > fool make himself a larger fool.
> > [ >
> > [ > And it takes little energy for me or for you to add
> > [ > "sci.chem" but think of how much energy and how much rage
> > [ > it gives Uncle Al. Why, I just burst out into laughter at
> > [ > all the energy spent by Uncle Al in stalking this and
> > [ > other posts of mine. Uncle Al is too stupid to realize he
> > [ > has been defeated and that the world laughs at his cop
> > [ > enforcement. That method (if they have a newsgroup
> > [ > hangout) will deal with all stalkers of the Internet, not
> > [ > just Uncle Al.
> > End of copy
> >
> >
> >
> > [ Subject: Re: How to handle stalker Alan 'Uncle Al' Schwartz
> > [ Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004
> >
> > In article <ZcednUDSG4Zb5NPdRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
> > Bill Vajk <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> posted:
> >
> > > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > > news:<Stalker-Uncle-Al-27hf3.20040308@news.mantra.com>...
> > >
> > >>> In article <404D34BE.30087280@hate.spam.net>,
> > >>> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> posted:
> > >>>>[... reference to lies and defamation...]
> > >>>How to handle stalkers and "Uncle Al"
> > >> - snip -
> > >> Thanks, Jai, looks like this fellow was not worth my attention. It is
> > >> depressing to think, that those in power in the field of modern
> > >> physics are what chaps like these want to be.
> > >
> > > Al is a chemist wannabe physicist.
> >
> > Alan Schwartz has published his contact information:
> >
> > Alan Schwartz
> > 49 Fabriano
> > P.O. Box 005
> > Irvine, CA 92620-2525
> >
> >
> > http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Nu16TComWkEJ:www.mazepath.com/uncleal/advert.htm+%22Schwartz%22+%22Uncle+Al%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> > and e-mail addresses:
> >
> > "Alan Schwartz" <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > "Alan Schwartz" <UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > - - - - -
> Thanks for the warning about the modern sceintist who defends
> science all the time. Uncle Al is ignored. He is the
> flip side of the open thinking philosopher scinetist.
>
> Meaning he requires litterally a falsified predicate thinking.
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: black holes and intelligent design"
- Previous message: Borek: "Re: Is this acceptable Chemical English?"
- Maybe in reply to: Dr. Jai Maharaj: "WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
