Interactive chart displays opinion gaps between scientists and public

[Read the post]

The idea that a Democrat-leaning population would support GMOs much more than Republicans didn’t make sense. It turns out that the widget mislabels the bars in the chart when you refine and then return to Overall. The graphic shown in the BB post includes this error: you can recreate it by selecting Party Id and then returning to Overall. Blue should be labeled U.S. Adults and yellow AAAS Members.


This explains things in my pinterest feed.


The ISS thing isn’t surprising. The ISS produces negligible amounts of scientific data while consuming vast amounts of resources. Space science is done almost entirely by remotely operated probes and satellites; the primary output of crewed missions is propaganda and PR.

Every dollar spent on maintaining the canned monkeys is a dollar not spent on science. Bush Jr’s vaporware Mars plan decimated the genuine space research missions being developed at the time.


Interesting, but I can see a few obvious issues. eg “Safe to eat food grown with pesticides.” That is very likely the case with some pesticides, and is demonstrably not the case for others, so a better questions would be
“Are US government regulators competent and honest enough to determine which pesticides are safe for human consumption.”

Same with GMO foods. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with it, and it is certainly possible to engineer safe GMO foods (like golden rice), but I can absolutely guarantee that it is also possible to use transgenics to make unsafe food, so the question is, once again, the same as above.

I also wish they had more detail on what they consider a “science degree.” Just putting it there without explanation doesn’t help a lot, because it can mean very different things to different people. I looked at their actual study, and couldn’t find any specifics there, either.


And whatever the nuances of their stances on pesticides/GMOs, these people are apparently quite happy to consume them, so…

Also leaves out the more important issues of how safe and sustainable using pesticides is for soil health and other ecosystem impacts like algae blooms, nutrient uptake, and many others. Same for GMOs, of which there are many different sorts, but the most widely planted are those used as conduits for selling more pesticides. It’s a very simplistic treatment of complex issues, fueling the ‘ha! anti-science!’ types when industrialized agriculture is called into question.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.