Hello all, I first came in this forum while a GM foods discussion was on. Now this website is labelled tight-science.com.I wonder where is the 'tight' science, unless it be called 'uptight' science from my experience in the GM foods discussion, where Jen Wade was astoundingly one-sided in her views in defense of GM foods. Tight science requires an unbiased outlook, which granted does not happen automatically, especially when one is in an academic/industry environment that is pro-GM foods.. however, the tight scientist must investigate to see EVERYTHING that the opponents say, and thereby hope to get a wider view of the issue. Rest all the topics here are classic generation X ( =fun stuff ).

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Answers

I dunno, Martes, I thought that Jen responded attentively and exhaustively to what her opposites in the GM debate had to say, and I certainly didn't get a sense of you being exceptionally open to looking beyond your own priors. Indeed, the kind of argument you seem to be resorting to now - the not-so-subtle suggestion that Jen's intellectual position is bound by professional/career ambition - is, in my experience, generally the last refuge of the ideologue. But I don't know you, so I won't make unsupported presumptions about your motives. As you should not about Jen's.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Hell, I'm just glad she got rid of the sickly green color scheme. And I think you're being remarkably one-sided about your views of gen-Xers; you might think about their deriliction next time you, say, download a song from Napster courtesy of Shawn Fanning, or criticize someone for being flippant or superficial who has gotten through years of education in biological studies through dedication and discipline, and has a much better grasp of the use of commas to boot. Mad props to hamster porn! Down with the establishment!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

I am curious to know, Martes, what makes my defense of GM foods "biased" if your equally vehement attack on them is not?

As to the other topics on this board, yes, some are "fun" and others are geared towards more serious discussions. You, or anyone else who visits this board, are welcome to start a discussion on whatever subject you wish, or to go play elsewhere if you'd prefer.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Hello everyone, what prompted me to post the above was the name 'tight' in tight-science. I am merely intrigued by the use of that word. And the reason why I refer to the several months old GM foods discussion was that I felt oftentimes the various participants ( certainly me included ) were not broadcasting on the same wavelength. Jen, one of my points touched upon the impracticability of the APPLICATION of GM foods in Asia, for which science by itself cannot supply the solution. But that was not touched upon in replies/responses. Oh, and I do agree that I may have missed out on all your points. What I'm trying to get at is that ( as far as what I understand ), the word 'tight' refers to science without leaks, that has been throuughly investigated for snafus and glitches ( actual/potential ).

Anyway, thanks for your responses, and yea Andrea I'm working on commas.. have been taught different things by my english teachers in the three different countries I grew up in ( in Britain you get a whack on the knuckles if you place a comma before 'and', while thats allright in the land of OZ)

peace martes

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Your mother.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

"Tight science" is hip-hop slang referring to knowledge ("science") which is good or correct ("tight"). I adopted the term for my journal because I thought it was a clever pun, given that I am a scientist, and also as a sort of self-mocking jab at my own utter whitey-ness.

I addressed the issue of distribution and use of GM foods in third world countries at length in the other topic, and I would disagree with your contention, Martes, that application of such foods is an issue unrelated to science. While I agree that it obviously remains to be seen how useful GM foods will be to people living in developing countries, I don't think it is absurd to predict that they will have some significant benefit. Numerous experts on the subject share this belief, including Nigeria's minister of agriculture and rural development, and many agricultural scientists with no ties to biotech companies.

I knew when I chose this domain name, I was setting myself up to be told that my science was, in fact, not tight. However, in this case, I would disagree with that assessment.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

bahahahaaaafdrhgh.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Well damb. Seems I missed the whole jist of the new domain name then. I thought it was the body-mind description type of thing. I was guessing you chose it only because hotsciencebabe.com was already taken.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

In my experience with developing countries' agricultural and scientific ministries, the ministers are not necessarily the experts. There is a lot of political pressure for govt scientists to chart out policies that propose widespread acceptance of agrotech, and the nexus between agrocompanies, the World Bank and third world governments oftentimes is fairly murky. And that includes universities and research institutes.. at least in Mexico and India ( where I have worked ), and in many countries of Africa where I have known others working. I'm not saying that GM foods have no value on their own, Jen, and as you say, one cannot predict whats going to happen with their widespread use. However, there are many negative possibilities that one ought to be aware of--both scientifically as well as socioculturally. And while the science aspects could be good, a real world application would involve consideration of other factors. That is what I'm trying to say. Thanks for your replies, and tightscience is a cool name. peace

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

What's interesting is that I considered registering tight-science.com and/or tightscience.com (still available) a long time ago, inspired, of course, by Pamie's use of "my science is tight, yo!"

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Yeah, I bet Jennifer would be overjoyed to find out you both were sharing tightscience domains!

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Well, Dave is pretty notorious. I would probably get some hits from people who got the URLs confused.

Do you even have a site anymore, though, Dave?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001