We have just added your latest post “Liberal Conspiracy” to our Directory of Science . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to your website.

Warm Regards

Scienz.info Team

http://www.scienz.info

Maybe. But my perception is that the Greens are much worse on science now than they were, say, 20 years ago. Then global warming was off the radar, and the message was ‘please listen to the science’. GM wasn’t an issue. Animal testing policy was not, yet, for a total ban.

If I were you I’d certainly work to improve what there is (not that you wouldn’t be welcome here in Scotland). There’s a pretty good base of sensible people, and winning the arguments you care about is easier in a smaller and more democratic party.

Cheers
James

(I ended up walking out of a workshop at my job the other day, as I couldn’t listen to a pompous prick telling us all that, not only was animal testing wrong, but that the entire medical profession was all morally bankrupt and that all you needed was filtered water, vitamins and deep breaths to keep a person healthy. This was the week after my mother was diagnosed with lung cancer. The suspicion that That Guy is in the Greens is one off the things keeping me away.)

I have zero control over comments here, at The Guardian, or anywhere that I write that isn’t my own blog. At The Lay Scientist, I don’t delete comments on principle, unless they are spam, duplicates, or contain extreme racism or hate speech (which has only happened twice in the last 18 months).

If a comment hasn’t appeared somewhere, it has nothing to do with me *washes hands*.

The UK requires everything to meet EU and UK standards, I don’t really think weakeniing those standards is a sensible way forward, even if it did ptrotect some animals.

“Secondly there is animal testing for products that aren’t socially useful. ”

‘Socially useful’? What does that category include (or exclude)?

“I have heard people argue against the effectiveness of animal testing in some circumstances – but don’t know enough about it to use that argument myself.”

Good, it is either a stupid argument or a trivial truism, although you do hear it a lot.

“I’ll give you UKIPs on climate though. It was a bit sulky, but to be honest their whole reply to us was incredibly arrogant and rude:”

I’m regularly accused of all sorts of things but those two are new to me.

Especially since you said that I actualy gave the best answer to one of the questions.

It’s also not quite the done thing to refuse to publish comments when people disagree with you…..as you did not publish my comments on your blogs posts.

“And you didn’t answer my question about field trials to determine the sfety of GM crops.” Yes I did. I’m in favour of further lab trials at the moment.

“But disregarding that you want industry to stop using GM because? You don’t like capitalism?” Yes, correct.

“You can’t argue that it is ok for research but bad for business if your argument is science based. ” Yes I can. The research is used by business in a way in which I disapprove. I do not disapprove of the technology and research that led to the nuclear bomb but I do disapprove of nuclear bombs.

“it’s about the comparative risks” Yes. A political decision not a purely scientific one.

“you cannot just highlight the downside of one technology to argue against it, ” I don’t. I’ve written about nuclear power a whole number of times. This was a response to a specific point.

“Are you prepared to accept the ethical and political consequences of this? ” [animal experimentation] I think I’ve already made clear I’m not for a ban on animal experimentation. In which case the rest of your para looks a bit stupid.

Me ” I have my doubts about whether a lot of animal experimentation is necessary or useful” You “i don’t and I have expertise in this area”

I can tell you’re someone who doesn’t have doubts. That’s very clear indeed.

I’m not opposed (incidentally) to research into GM in the lab, further research into the wider implications of GM and any health risks / benefits – although much of it happens as a direct adjunct to the commercial arms of multinationals – so whether they’d want to continue their research under my conditions is another matter.

Most GM research is non-commercial, academic in nature and funded out of the public purse. And you didn’t answer my question about field trials to determine the sfety of GM crops. But disregarding that you want industry to stop using GM because? You don’t like capitalism? You can’t argue that it is ok for research but bad for business if your argument is science based.

but unless there’s a scientist that knows how to solve the nuclear waste problem they aren’t going to change the political perspectives of the Green Party on the issue.

It’s not about preventing nuclear unless it’s risk free, nothing is, it’s about the comparative risks to the planet from hydrocrabons vs nuclear vs alternatives. The debate needs to be framed in this manner you cannot just highlight the downside of one technology to argue against it, a fair and reasonable debate would be over cost/benefit, not ideological statements that some things are just verboten then cite poor post hoc reasoning for this.

but due to ethical and political concerns that aren’t addressed by someone in a labcoat saying these things are the business (pun intended).

The ethical debate is the consequences of banning animals experimentation vs not banning it. The consequences of a ban on animals would be an end to biological and medical research and an end to adequate assessments of novel chemicals amongst many others. Are you prepared to accept the ethical and political consequences of this? Have you even thought about it or do you prefer to resort to fantasies about alternatives?

have my doubts about whether a lot of animal experimentation is necessary or useful

i don’t and I have expertise in this area. See @53 also.