blinding me with science oh wait no it was glitter

[blackjedii]

The Problem With the March for ScienceHundreds of thousands of self-professed science supporters turned out to over 600 iterations of the March for Science around the world this weekend. Thanks to the app Periscope, I attended half a dozen of them from the comfort of my apartment, thereby assiduously minimizing my carbon footprint

Comments

[hikerpoet]

I definitely see why people have mixed feelings about the marches. As the leader of a non-profit, I admit I was a bit snobby about all of them at first. Like, "Yeah, you johnny-come-latelys go have fun while we do boots on the ground and boring but vital behind the scenes but highly effective shit". But then I saw how much they got people *talking* with some good dialogues happening, and either way, it got SO MUCH attention. Even negative buzz gets people continuing to talk. I actually did participate in the women's march (despite its flaws) but not this one, but may have if not for a prior commitment.

Haha...yes, I see conflict about the "liberal elite" termage. I live right in the thick of them here in Boston and feel pretty close to both the hypocrisies but also the nuance that is missed when it is used with a critical weight.

I do agree or at least sympathize with some of the points here--the problems with sites like IFLScience, the cherry picking.

Of course it also has some unresearched bias as well. While my responses are also only anecdotal, I feel like it isn't always so simple.

As mentioned above, I feel like Boston has some of the worst of the liberal elite (although I also love it here, would prefer it to some alternatives, and least some people are starting to acknowledge/work on/admit some of the issues.)

At the same time, we're a huge science city, and I know many of the participants were in or extremely close to the field...it definitely didn't seem like a passel of wannabes chirping the left-wing line on it here. Also, even though we're a blue state, interestingly, I knew a lot more conservatives who participated in this march than the women's march. While that makes me sad about their thoughts on the continued prevalence of sexism, this one did seem to really go beyond party lines more than the last one, although I admit I don't have numbers, which is interesting, but I'm not sure where to go with that yet if it is true.

I also work in conservation, and want to clarify the misconception about GMOs in the article. There are indeed a lot of non-scientific hippies who are convinced all GMOs (despite the enormously broad definition) are enormously dangerous to just consume.

Most conservationists I know acknowledge GMOs are safe to eat; their criticisms aren't rooted in "OMG THIS IS GOING TO MAKE US GROW THREE HEADS" like it is with a small but vocal and non-professional online contingent.

But it doesn't mean the way they tend to be used/applied don't make for bad agriculture (continued excessive over-reliance on monoculture and its accompanying cons, excessive hardiness prioritized over nutrients, etc) or that concern over developed "invasives" isn't valid.

Sorry this is getting a little tangent-y, but that's a common thing I see...I sometimes actually sometimes see it more from the other direction. Pro-science folks who may not be scientists themselves either bundling any and all criticisms of GMOs in with the ~woo-woos~ (who are admittedly mockworthy) when not all concerns have to do with safety/food aspect. Sort of like even those who are in the nanotech field are like, "Oh, yeah, interesting potential but we've got to be careful how it is used/released...unintended consequences are easier than in some research fields".