Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

disinformationchronicle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#181

Post by user3939382 »

dekhn wrote: post #153
user3939382 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn’t there a school groundskeeper who won a lawsuit whose decision was based on it being carcinogenic? If memory serves, he had a lawyer vs a huge team of high priced attorneys who, after a long lawsuit, failed to convince the court. I’m not an expert but courts are designed to adjudicate technical issues like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit-...

Courts do not make legal decisions based on technical information. A court/jury could find the exact opposite of what science said and it would still be considered legitimate legal determination.

Decisions like this are based on the testimony of subject matter experts.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#182

Post by kuhewa »

user3939382 wrote: post #179
kuhewa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> courts are designed to adjudicate technical issues like this Since adjudicate just means to decide something judicially, that is tautological but technically correct. Beyond that narrow definition though, a jury trial is not the mechanism to decide a scientific and probabalistic question like whether spraying weed killer caused a particular case of lymphoma.

It's not tautological because of the end of the phrase "technical issues like this". In other words, courts in this case aren't a bunch of laymen sitting around guessing whether this chemical is harmful. They're reviewing the research straight out of the mouths of the most qualified experts both sides can bring to the table. The court's decision on this was the product of the science.

No. The court's decision was what a non-expert jury of peers was convinced of by lawyers. The lawyers' jobs are not to help the jury reach the truth, but to do anything legal to win for their clients, including torturing both facts and the often arbitrary rules of courtroom procedure. There may have been evidence presented that originated with the scientific process, but no, the court's decision was not 'the product of science'.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#183

Post by eurasiantiger »

izzygonzalez wrote: post #164
eurasiantiger wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems absurd to you that Monsanto would try to affect academics and the scientific world view? Did you not read even the headline of the OP article?

Oh that's standard fare. Institutional incentives are not always aligned with human needs. Not to reduce the severity of it all. It's really bad. I'm more incredulous about academically trained domain experts being "brainwashed". Corruption and incompetence are simpler explanations that also make sense.

Is there a difference?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#184

Post by aa-jv »

gcheong wrote: post #151
aa-jv wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monsanto doesn't have any competitors. It just buys them.

Wrong, Monsanto was bought by Bayer.

You say Bayer, I say Monsanto, the distinction is entirely irrelevant since they both have a history of aggressively buying/smothering any perceived competitors that threaten their "own all the foodz" business model.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#185

Post by epgui »

aa-jv wrote: post #184
gcheong wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong, Monsanto was bought by Bayer.

You say Bayer, I say Monsanto, the distinction is entirely irrelevant since they both have a history of aggressively buying/smothering any perceived competitors that threaten their "own all the foodz" business model.

Precision and exactitude are almost always relevant, and even more so when directing criticism.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#186

Post by epgui »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #183
izzygonzalez wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that's standard fare. Institutional incentives are not always aligned with human needs. Not to reduce the severity of it all. It's really bad. I'm more incredulous about academically trained domain experts being "brainwashed". Corruption and incompetence are simpler explanations that also make sense.

Is there a difference?

Yes, there's a really big difference lol. I would encourage you to consult a dictionary or wikipedia to clear it up.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#187

Post by dekhn »

user3939382 wrote: post #181
dekhn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts do not make legal decisions based on technical information. A court/jury could find the exact opposite of what science said and it would still be considered legitimate legal determination.

Decisions like this are based on the testimony of subject matter experts.

Yes, but it doesn't follow from that that courts make determinations of law based on scientific evidence. Some SMEs simply lie and the court can't tell. IN other cases the SME testifies, but it doesn't affect the decision.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#188

Post by aa-jv »

epgui wrote: post #185
aa-jv wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say Bayer, I say Monsanto, the distinction is entirely irrelevant since they both have a history of aggressively buying/smothering any perceived competitors that threaten their "own all the foodz" business model.

Precision and exactitude are almost always relevant, and even more so when directing criticism.

It is precise to call Monsanto and Bayer the biggest threats to food security the human species has ever faced.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#189

Post by gcheong »

aa-jv wrote: post #188
epgui wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precision and exactitude are almost always relevant, and even more so when directing criticism.

It is precise to call Monsanto and Bayer the biggest threats to food security the human species has ever faced.

Certainly could say something about how concentrating power in a few corporations is not a good thing but that is a result of capitalism under a lax anti-trust environment and all companies play under the same incentive. Not in terms of the technology though.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#190

Post by aa-jv »

gcheong wrote: post #189
aa-jv wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is precise to call Monsanto and Bayer the biggest threats to food security the human species has ever faced.

Certainly could say something about how concentrating power in a few corporations is not a good thing but that is a result of capitalism under a lax anti-trust environment and all companies play under the same incentive. Not in terms of the technology though.

Bayer/Monsanto certainly have set the standard for corrupt control over the worlds food resources, though, and they're definitely playing evil games in Ukraine, for example ..
Post reply on HN