In December, The New York Times's David Hakim reports on Scientists Loved and Loathed by Agrochemical Firm Syngenta; and vice versa, corporate research grants loved and loathed by scientists.
The article goes into the 3 different examples of scientists working in Agrochemical research.
- Pesticide effects on bee health (Dr. James Cresswell)
- Herbicide atrazine effects on prostate cancer & other health issues (Dr. James Simpson)
- GMO corn engineered to kill insect larvae (Dr. Angelika Hilbeck)
Issues covered: It starts with money of course. In UK 15% of university research is funded by private industry.
Scientific findings bound by confidentiality agreements. The funding source has "editorial control."
Partnerships between corporations, researchers and government which include secret patent deals.
Regulators as collaborators not watchdogs.
This pre-dates Trump; it is a good example of why March for Science shouldn't focus just on what is going on in Congress and White House today.
This is the questions I have: "whose science?, and how can an informed citizen know?
I listened to a great podcast this week where David Axelrod interviewed Former HHS Secretary, former Utah governor, and former head of the EPA, Mike Leavitt.
Why @GOP Congress should proceed with caution on Obamacare. Former Bush HHS secy Mike Leavitt on #AxeFiles. https://t.co/uGG6gUgGf5 pic.twitter.com/6XVQrMtlKl— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 16, 2017
I've been seeking out podcasts recently which feature thoughtful Republicans. I want to learn where the common ground is. The first half of this podcast is on the Affordable Care Act (good listening too), but at minute 35 the conversation shifts to the EPA. When talking about the environment, Leavitt found political balance between, for example, sustainability and development, almost impossible. The objective of policy makers, Leavitt says, "is to find that balance."
In minute 43, when the conversation shifts to nuclear power, Leavitt asks "whose science?" I've found a transcript for an earlier conversation that captures the same point:
People continue to ask me, "Why is it that you politicians ignore the science in developing public policy?" The frustration I feel is the question: "whose science?" because, as a policymaker, I am constantly having scientists of general, good reputes give me different points of view. I have come to find out that all scientists do not agree; that it's not something that is absolute, and there are people of substantial sincerity and enormous credential who see the world differently. So, when you're in a public policy making role and you follow one science,there is always another science that disputes what you've said.
In Seattle Science March, and the work the group continues long-term, this is a central question.To find the scientific consensus on an issue, where do we go? Who do we ask? There is always doubt, additional questions, unknowns--that is the nature of scientific pursuit--but we do learn things over time. Our knowledge of how things work does progress.