> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The scientists repeatedly treated these forms of resistance [to GMOs]
> as arising
> > from idiotic, anti-modern, hysterically romantic foolishness... an
> > utterly despicable and more intellectually and scientifically moribund
> > practice than that of the resistors.
>
> Perhaps you've dug into the matter more than I have, but this
> treatment of resistance seems to have sources much broader than any
> group of scientists (many of whom agree with much of the critique:
>
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/
> ).
>
> One of my beefs with at least the popular face of science studies that
> I've encountered is that the tendency to use science as a club, often
> in a way that contradicts its own findings, is imbedded more in the
> larger culture than being specific to science or the culture of
> scientists.
>
> --
> Andy
>
I thought I noted that there have always been internal critiques from scientists... and I'd bet we'd agree that UCS is a group of scientists more or less outside the mainstream of the scientific establlishment. I'm also sure that Progressive experts in all fields have a tendency to treat all challenged to their authority as hysterical and anti-science.
I'm not sure what you mean by science studies in your last paragraph, I was thinking of the work of Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, Joan Fujimura, Steve Epstein, Daniel Kleinman, Susan Leigh Star, Brian Wynne, etc. these folks don't use science as a club.