Comments on: Announcements, Announcements! First up: Michael Specter coming to Yale http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/09/28/announcements-announcements-first-up-michael-specter-coming-to-yale/ A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer. Sat, 26 May 2012 01:25:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Carl Zimmer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/09/28/announcements-announcements-first-up-michael-specter-coming-to-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-43147 Carl Zimmer Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:47:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=3480#comment-43147 Brian--Well, if you live in the New Haven area, please come and ask these questions! If not, I'll be curious to see if others do. Brian–Well, if you live in the New Haven area, please come and ask these questions! If not, I’ll be curious to see if others do.

]]> By: Brian Ogilvie http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/09/28/announcements-announcements-first-up-michael-specter-coming-to-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-43146 Brian Ogilvie Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:40:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/?p=3480#comment-43146 I like a lot of Specter's work but I was troubled by parts of <i>Denialism</i>. He seems to conflate anti-science denialism, such as creationism and vaccination denialism, with what I see as more legitimate concerns about the political economy of genetically engineered crops and the unknown consequences of large-scale bioengineering. By lumping together, under the label of"denialists," those who oppose vaccination (because of personal anecdotes and fearmongering) with those who raise questions about whether it's a good thing for agribusiness to be able to patent vital food crops and require a license for their use, Specter seems to conflate two very different sets of concerns, the second of which is much more nuanced than the label "denialism" implies. The first involves refusing to accept <i>knowledge</i>, and finding specious reasons to reject it; the other involves the consequences of <i>technological intervention</i> in the world on a large scale. It's denialist to claim that crops that are genetically engineered to include Bt require fewer chemical pesticides--but is it denialist to claim that the advantages of such genetic engineering are not so clear-cut? I'd be curious to know how he responds to such questions. I like a lot of Specter’s work but I was troubled by parts of Denialism. He seems to conflate anti-science denialism, such as creationism and vaccination denialism, with what I see as more legitimate concerns about the political economy of genetically engineered crops and the unknown consequences of large-scale bioengineering. By lumping together, under the label of”denialists,” those who oppose vaccination (because of personal anecdotes and fearmongering) with those who raise questions about whether it’s a good thing for agribusiness to be able to patent vital food crops and require a license for their use, Specter seems to conflate two very different sets of concerns, the second of which is much more nuanced than the label “denialism” implies. The first involves refusing to accept knowledge, and finding specious reasons to reject it; the other involves the consequences of technological intervention in the world on a large scale. It’s denialist to claim that crops that are genetically engineered to include Bt require fewer chemical pesticides–but is it denialist to claim that the advantages of such genetic engineering are not so clear-cut?

I’d be curious to know how he responds to such questions.

]]>