How many of these problems were exposed by corporations? How many problems of these sorts were identified by businesses and then dealt with? I'ld love to know!
smoking-cancer connection and nicotine addiction match stick factory health problems PCBs ozone layer climate change over fishing over hunting deforestation unsafe working conditions unhealthy alcohol consumption sugar-tooth decay ballast water carrying invasive species lead contamination of soil, water and children's health DDT and other pesticides/herbicides in human and environmental health radio active radium in watch faces washing hands before returning to work cocain in coca cola patent medicines (heck this stuff is back on the market!!) black lung These are just off the top of my head, I suspect they were all identified by outside parties and denied by the concerned producer. Thanks for the feedback! Malcolm McCallum On Thu, October 25, 2007 12:46 am, David M. Lawrence wrote: > Hmmm, > > What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini? What if the majority of > scientific opinion is motivated by the collective perception, based on > scientifically verifiable (and repeatable) analyses, that indicate a > number > of environmental problems require serious attention? > > I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you > claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most > part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as > climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of natural > resources, etc., etc., are worthy of greater consideration by scientists > as > well as society at large. > > Not only am I not getting that money -- I'm not seeking it, either. So it > appears, at least in my case, that your broad-brush hypothesis cannot fit > all of the available observations. Given that, it may be that your > hypothesis should be rejected or subjected to some revision -- namely, > that > some issues are seen as important by the scientific community because, > well, > they are important. > > When society makes decisions on how to best allocate its scientific > resources, shouldn't those resources be primarily aimed toward those > problems that appear most pressing? > > You seem to be saying that people are eager to give scientists money all > the > while knowing that we saboteurs will find ways to add discomfort to their > lives. In my experience, people have never been all that willing to > embrace > prophets spreading the gospel of trial and tribulation. Given that the > solutions to many of the environmental problems we face will require some > (significant) sacrifice by society, an analysis of historical data suggest > that it is not the best business model depeding on public support for > further statements of gloom and doom is no the best for scientists. > > If said business model IS flawed, then the argument that scientist see > problems beause of their funding potential is equally flawed. > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Climate change funding > > Malcolm Mccallum wrote: > >> if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they >> would be found in corporations paying much better than >> the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most >> universities upon graduation. Despite this, >> graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek >> academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These >> facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that >> scientific opinions are in some way driven by the >> availability of funds. > > Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been > a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has > generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government > funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental > science related jobs. > > In recent decades our universities have been cranking out > thousands of new graduates in the environmental science > related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, "seek > academic posts". > > "Academic posts" = jobs in our government owned institutions > (e.g. universities) & agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). > > What determines the number of available environmental > science related jobs in our government institutions & > agencies? > > Answer: the availability of funds. > > What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new > funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific > opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e.g. > ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately > addressed (via funding researchers who work at the > government institutions & agencies) to avert serious > environmental consequences. > > In this way, it appears to me that scientific opinions are > substantially influenced by the availability of funds. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
