Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Will: I appreciate critical thinking and can see where you feel my previous analogy doesn't hold. However, your repost, I feel, is quite inaccurate and (in the context of my analogy) suggests that gun developers and researchers pushing its innovation existed when gun powder was created. Guns did not exist when gun powder was created, therefore its creators should not be held accountable for what comes later. Can you see the comparison?
Your bias is clear "You can try to argue that GMO crops are socially beneficial". As in try but Im not listening and won't buy it. That is your opinion. My view is also clear on that issue.
I feel that saying the researchers are responsible for their discoveries becoming GMO products marketed by corporations in this context is absurd. We can agree to disagree on this point.
Also, I was quite clear "is it the information or the person using it that can be corrupted?" I have already tried to guide another posters comments back to my main point... the carrot is not working. My argument is avoided while people rant about GMO's. Do you not believe in the free flow of knowledge? I get the impression that this article's author believes he is a good judge of how information should be distributed and applied. I am of the opinion that knowledge should be open and free to all and that no one can judge whether or not information should be stifled. Again I ask, is it the information or the person using it that can be corrupted?"
kelly: So what is the argument here? I assume you are anti-GMO however that field is not used for GMO's. You are arguing the wrong point (which I tried to point out in a first post; disguising the argument over Gill tract as a what to do with knowledge issue evades the argument at hand). Suggesting researchers are driven by the agenda of agribusiness suggests you have no clue about the public funding driving all the research being mentioned. Lastly, thinking the researchers will see any tangible profit when they are cited in the bibliography of a patent is ignorant as it is the university that owns all patents created by its researchers. I do not know what happens to the money the UC brings in because of said patents but again that is an entirely different argument (and one I sympathize with you on). As to what they create, I feel my gunpowder analogy is quite pertinent; I assume you hold the creators of gunpowder responsible for all gun deaths... I'm sure they claimed (and believed that) gunpowder would just be for fireworks...
Parrish: So by that logic the creators of gun powder (who then used it for festival fireworks) are responsible for its real world application outside of their initial usages? That means everyone to pull a trigger is not responsible for the result?
Also, every public university with any form of research has a technology transfer office, does that make technology transfer evil? By extension, the internet is a technology transfer station, does that make it evil? Just playing devil's advocate because based on the dislikes of my first comment bias is promoted and encouraged here.
This article seems elegantly written to cover up one very important and relevant point. What to do with knowledge and who should control the flow of knowledge. Basic research is question driven, not profit driven. Corporations are profit driven. If anyone or anything does something with knowledge that is publicly available is it the information or the person using it that can be corrupted? E.g. this article which insinuates that these named researchers profit from corporations using public knowledge (without explicitly saying it as to let the reader come to that assumption, a nice literary device). This article presents free information in a biased way as to corrupt and bias those reading it to the authors opinion. Again I ask, is it the information or the person using it that can be corrupted?
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation