Science and politics.

 

If you bother to keep up with the contemporary definitions of "Right" and "Left" in American politics, you'll notice that there are some consistencies within them and their value systems. However, at some point (when you take them to their extremes) you end up with contradictory nonsense.

Here's an example.

John Cochrane brought up an interesting article titled "Don’t Be Afraid of Genetic Modification". the moral of the story is that for 17 years now AquaBounty has been patiently awaiting approval from the FDA of it's "AquAdvantage" fish, which is a genetically modified fish that reaches adult size in half the time.

You can imagine this is the textbook definition of a technological advancement. Costs go down, price goes down, quantity demanded goes up, PPF shifts out, etc. etc. What you don't know are some of the other benefits, such as:

"It’s a healthy and relatively cheap food source that, as global demand for fish increases, can take some pressure off our wild fish stocks."

So more food for the growing demand, and we get to protect the environment? Seems too easy. Who's against this?

"Many of the members of Congress who oppose the modified fish represent states with strong salmon industries. And some nonprofit groups seem to be opposing the modified salmon reflexively, as part of an agenda to oppose all animal biotechnology, regardless of its safety or potential benefits"

And:

"In December, Jon Entine, the executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that promotes education about biotechnology issues, wrote an article in Slate suggesting that the holdup wasn’t with the F.D.A., which had completed the report, but with the Obama administration, which had just finished a re-election campaign. He wrote, “The delay, sources within the government say, came after meetings with the White House, which was debating the political implications of approving the GM salmon, a move likely to infuriate a portion of its base.” A few days after the article appeared, the F.D.A. published its assessment. The date on the report — May 4, 2012 — seemed to confirm Mr. Entine’s account that it had been ready for months. "

What happens when your love for the FDA, your unsubstantiated belief that buying locally and naturally is better, and the environment, contradict each other? Exactly this. I mean, as bad as the Conservatives are (stem cells, evolution, on and on), can we really call the Democratic party the pro-science, and pro-environment party? The sad thing is that this would be the first transgenic animal allowed for human consumption. So it's not just this, but nearly all other types of foods that are more efficient, and scientifically proven to be healthy. Now, there is real concern, such that:

"Some environmentalists fear that the modified salmon might wriggle free from fish farms, start reproducing, and ultimately drive wild salmon populations to extinction"

Which is a perfectly legitimate concern, and we should consider whether or not it's likely, or even possible. So, does the FDA think it is? Nope:

"But scientists, including the F.D.A.’s experts, have concluded that the fish is just as safe to eat as conventional salmon and that, raised in isolated tanks, it poses little risk to wild populations"

Not to mention that waiting 13 years hasn't had one problem (as well as the fact that all the salmon are sterile females). But why are they so against it, if one of the few concerns (if you look at Wiki this is the ONLY concern) doesn't actually concern them? They're pushing politics. That's why. The sad fact is that this is one of the few cases that are so tangible. Technological growth and advancement like this is constantly stifled, creating counter-productive results for those who oppose it for environmental, or "healthy", reasons. 

To sum this up, here's quotes from both Cochrane:

"GMO foods are, potentially, a huge game changer. Once every 50 years or so, we bump up against a Malthusian limit, and a new idea frees us again. Fixing airborne nitrogen. Green revolution. Now, GMO foods. GMO plants are being bred to use less fertilizer and insecticide, i.e. to be better for the environment, as well as to cure vitamin A deficiency, produce less waste, and so on. No, dear Greenpeace, organic farming is not the answer, unless we use a lot more land for agriculture, starve out half the people, or believe in magic.  (It's too bad organizations like this suffer such mission creep. I would happily support their efforts on behalf of endangered species.)"

And Anthes:

"The F.D.A. must make sure that other promising genetically modified animals don’t come to the same end. Of course every application needs to be painstakingly evaluated, and not every modified animal should be approved. But in cases like AquaBounty’s, where all the available evidence indicates that the animals are safe, we shouldn’t let political calculations or unfounded fears keep these products off the market. If we do that, we’ll be closing the door on innovations that could help us face the public health and environmental threats of the future, saving countless animals — and perhaps ourselves"

(please read about Enviropigs on his article as well.)

Point? There's plenty of scientific illiteracy on both sides. One is just more blunt about it, while the other is subtle.