I’ve had a busy travel and writing week, so I did not have time to comment on President Obama’s stem cell policy announcement and accompanying statement on the “restoration” of “scientific integrity to government decision-making…….

I think we need to be careful because we may not share interpretations of what “foundation” or “based on” means, nor what “science” means.

Also I used to work in the GE food world, and to me the difference is fundamentally not about science- that people weigh the risks and the rewards differently (not that they disagree on what ARE the risks and rewards) and that there are many areas of uncertainty, and pros vs. cons generally disagree on how to handle the uncertainties.

#1. I don’t know that I’ve ever read credible suggest that we should be irradiating “all food”.

#2. You must have never talked to anyone who preferred geothermal or hydropower. And there are actually people who, even *today*, prefer wind and solar.

#3. Not true. Depends on the type of modification. Bt-corn needs less pesticides than regular corn, but RoundupReady soybeans can withstand MORE pesticides than regular soybeans.

#4. Not many people think this. For example, in 2005 the Departments of Agriculture and Energy issued a joint report estimating > 1 billion tons of non-food sustainably harvestable biomass existed in the US.

Can you offer any evidence at all of a “consensus” on these points? Keep in mind linking to a single report or paper will not be enough; I am not arguing that no one has the views you list, just that the number of people who do is far short of a “consensus”.

This article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/science/10lab.html?_r=1&ref=science

Says:

“Restrictions on embryonic stem cell research originated with Congress, which, each year since in [sic] 1996, has forbidden the use of federal financing for any experiment in which a human embryo is destroyed. This includes the derivation of human stem cell lines from surplus fertility clinic embryos, first achieved by Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in 1998.

President Clinton contemplated but never implemented a policy that would have allowed N.I.H.-financed researchers to study human embryonic stem cells derived by others. Research was able to begin only in August 2001, when President Bush, seeking a different way around the Congressional restriction, said researchers could use any lines established before that date.”

1. Nuclear irradiation of all food would save lives and at the same time reduce the resources needed, and associated undesirable environmental impacts, to produce foodstuffs by the significant reduction in food wastes.

2. Nuclear power is at present the best alternative fuel source for displacement of fossil fueled base-loaded electricity production.

3. Genetically modified food crops have the same benefits as listed in 1 above.

4. Use of biomass crops to reduce consumption of oil for transportation has very significant adverse impacts on the environment and more importantly on human populations through higher costs for food necessary for health and safety.

5. The proper use of DDT can very significantly reduce unnecessary deaths in less-developed countries.

6. Development of lesser-developed countries through easy access to abundant electricity will very significantly reduce unnecessary deaths while at the same time reduce unnecessary use and destruction of natural resources.

I eagerly await science-based implementation of all these as policies supported by the present administration.

President Obama has now allowed harvesting human embryos for research on scientific grounds.

Does that mean that it is now public policy to substitute science for morality in policy decisions?