Science Good, Nature Bad

[Coffey, Mitchell R]

It's hard to know what to make of a screed like this that is based on an
obvious factual error.  In the U.S., the biotech industry routinely fails to
prevent government regulations that tell it what and how it can research,
what it can produce, to whom it can market what it produces and how its
production can be used.  As specters go, I'll take Casper any day.
 
Mitchell Coffey
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Otto [mailto:o.sell at telda.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:55 AM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Science Good, Nature Bad


"Caesar had his soothsayer, King Tut had his high priest, and Napoleon had
the Pope. But now we are enlightened. Now we have Science. (...)
In this modern era, the role of trusted advisor has fallen to scientists.
Science has finally triumphed over Nature through meticulous research,
objectivity and ethics. If something has been "scientifically proven," it is
gospel -- irrefutable in a court of law -- and if it can't be proven then it
is little more than witchcraft and rumor.(...)
The biotech business, with its $25 million public relations budget, has
claimed sole dominion over Science. In fighting a modern day Crusade, that's
equivalent to having God on your side. After all, since Science is the new
Gospel, those who oppose it are members of the anachronistic, backwards
Nature cult -- Luddites and Gaia-worshippers. (...) protestors are a handful
of religious zealots -- "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "devout Bhuddists" -- who
protest out of a "fear of the unknown" and a "primal" relationship with
their food and their bodies. 
Biotech's ability to propagate the Science vs. Nature divide has made them
extremely powerful. Says Gusterson, "Science is so powerful because we
believe that scientists stand for the truth, and there can only be one
truth. We think that good scientists must agree.""
 
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11105
<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11105>