Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 11 2017, @11:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the nothing-up-my-sleeve dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8317

Private emails between scientists working on a controversial genetic technology called "gene drive" were released last week. Obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, their publication has been criticized by some as an attempt to discredit the science community.

[...] The emails themselves, however, are news, and they were obtained in a lawful, straightforward way and were reported on by respected traditional news sources, such as The Guardian, which gave proper context to the files.

The release of these emails by [biosafety consultant Edward Hammond] who has a clear point-of-view on the issue, however, has led to yet another discussion of the proper way of publishing raw documents. Nature, one of the more respected and widely read science publishers, mentions the release of these emails in the same breath as emails that were obtained by illegal hacking in an editorial published this week:

The release of the e-mails echoes the way in which hackers released documents stolen from climate scientists before a major UN meeting in 2009. Much commentary on those documents suggested—wrongly—that scientists were up to no good. Still, damage was done and public trust in scientists declined. It would be unfortunate if the trick were repeated here, not least because it is scientists working on gene drives who have raised many of the concerns.

The 2009 hack that Nature mentions was terrible for scientists—climate scientists, in particular. When an email server at University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit was breached, as part of a climate change denier campaign, emails were dishonestly misrepresented to suggest a conspiracy was afoot.

It is reasonable and fair game for Nature to take issue with the way Hammond framed the documents, but juxtaposing the use of FOIA—a crucial process by which citizens hold their governments accountable—alongside a major incident of criminal hacking is bizarre, and was handled poorly.

If Nature meant to say that Hammond's FOIA trove was presented with malicious intent, then it failed to make that point clear.

"In our view, the editorial did not imply that FOIA—including the publishing of FOIA documents—is comparable to illegal hacking," Nature senior press manager Rebecca Walton told Motherboard.

Source: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3x7z7/nature-editorial-juxtaposes-foia-email-release-with-illegal-hacking-gene-drive


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 11 2017, @04:27PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 11 2017, @04:27PM (#608305) Journal

    Because I'm sure one group of scientists using one Top500 supercomputer to validate a model of another group will trigger "but it's a conspiracy" reaction from you.

    But if you insist, have a couple of places with software and datasets; I trust you'll validate them over the holidays and come with a well founded answer early Jan next year?

    Why exactly are you bragging about the lack of falsifiability of current computer models?

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:38AM (6 children)

    by c0lo (156) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:38AM (#608570) Journal

    Why exactly are you bragging about the lack of falsifiability of current computer models?

    Bragging? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    Letting aside the terminology... for your question on "why mentioning them"
    If these models are indeed un-falsifiable**, why bring them into discussion at all? Either you have faith in something or you don't. Bringing post-hoc justifications for one's belief makes one a hypocrite.

    ---

    Actually, they are falsifiable, but not by direct experimentation. At least not at the scale humans have at their discretion today.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:00AM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:00AM (#608610) Journal

      If these models are indeed un-falsifiable**, why bring them into discussion at all? Either you have faith in something or you don't. Bringing post-hoc justifications for one's belief makes one a hypocrite.

      Because they've a pretext for near future real world decisions that affect people on a global scale.

      Actually, they are falsifiable, but not by direct experimentation. At least not at the scale humans have at their discretion today.

      And conveniently not falsifiable on the time scales of the above real world decisions.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:44AM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:44AM (#608629) Journal

        Because they've a pretext for near future real world decisions that affect people on a global scale.

        Those aren't going to lead humanity to extinction. Inaction on the other side might.

        (Yes, I know your belief and I know mine, so don't bother repeating them - waste of energy)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:48AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:48AM (#608653) Journal

          Those aren't going to lead humanity to extinction. Inaction on the other side might.

          Not much point to having opinions on a scientific matter, if you don't have the evidence to back it up. It's worth noting here that there is absolutely no scientific backing for your beliefs that humanity could go extinct from climate change - even by the weak standards you bring to the table. You don't have a basis for your beliefs, not even from these climate change models, not from thousands of pages of research, not from scientific consensus.

          That makes you not quite as wrong as the person who doesn't think there is global warming in the first place. At least, you got that little bit right.

          (Yes, I know your belief and I know mine, so don't bother repeating them - waste of energy)

          As the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:04AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:04AM (#608657) Journal

            Not much point to having opinions on a scientific matter, if you don't have the evidence to back it up.

            The same goes for your position as well.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:11AM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:11AM (#608658) Journal

              The same goes for your position as well.

              Funny how nobody ever discusses that supposed tu quoque flaw except as a parting shot. What is a person to do?

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:28AM

                by c0lo (156) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:28AM (#608662) Journal

                No sense in repeating again and again same discussions we had in the past, I don't think it will change the results and I value my time.
                I hear you value your as well, so it should be a mutual feeling (unless, of course, you are actually paid for the replies. Are you?)

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0