Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
1–10 of 131 posts
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#2Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#3Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#4Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#5Of course they did. Anyone on the internet about a year - 2 years ago remembers every time you mentioned monsanto they would send shills in to defend them and call you a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#6Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#7The Tobacco Industry: The Pioneer of Fake News
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#8Of course they did. Anyone on the internet about a year - 2 years ago remembers every time you mentioned monsanto they would send shills in to defend them and call you a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.
A lot of the pro-GMO people seem to argue in really bad faith if they're not paid shills.
Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#9Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer
#10It is a real shame not to be able to trust "science" anymore. We'll have to come up with a new word for what we used to call science because I don't think corporations and media set on manipulating public opinion and laws will give it back.
Beyond the existing standing question of why more science papers don't publish information like the computer code they used, I've wondered why there isn't a push for "science-as-code". For example, if there was a common DSL that describes science lab automation, then a futuristic science paper would come with some a package that would drive another lab's robots and equipment to do the exact same experiment with the same steps, and let other labs alter the steps as they see fit once they reproduce the same results to toy with the experiment's findings.
Then all the calibration steps of each piece of equipment, all the sampling steps, all the measurement steps, etc. are all completely reproduced as code. Steps only expressible as "human hands do [insert-motions-here]" are translated to waldo motions, pressure sensing, etc.
Then a lab notebook would be filled with human interpretations of what scientists are seeing, hypotheses, etc., alongside a time-series recording of every step taken, environmental metrics measured, expressed in that DSL.