Uncle Albert's Cafe and Ǽ-Theory Bistro

It's a trap for us all, because even if you are a 'scientist' - whatever that might mean - you can't master everything. We all need to refer to the specialty of others, and in turn return our personal specialty to others.

[ 'Hypothetical' re. autism/vaccines - it is yet to be widespread knowledge that a certain gentleman is doing time in a UK jail for criminal fraud after receiving moneys from a legal group to do research with a particular conclusion. Said conclusion was to be quoted later in court action against the vaccine manufacturers. In terms of waste material from wood whittling this is the equivalent of a black hole's mass. No one wants to publish it because of the self evident backlash from the legal firm in question. Being my knowledge only personally acquired from very trusted contacts I can only quote detail in the confines of a confidential medical consultation. Alas very few jurisdictions have 'truth alone' as sufficient defense for libel/slander. ]

In the Amazon/AGW thing it wasn't really the CRU stuff that was upsetting. We are all human including the investigators, so that sort of behaviour happens. Fix it, and move on. What was the far deeper problem was that most Amazon contributors, regardless of point of view, were quite unconcerned about the absence of referable data. They appeared to truly think that science was just a matter of discussion and opinion without reference to measurement. For many it seemed to be an implicit response rather than realised/planned/deliberate strategy. I think this feature has been picked up by many news outlets and they are surfing to profit upon it. Quite bizarrely some news services which absolutely pasted the CIA, in it's darker days, for the 'plausible deniability' tactic have now co-opted it as their own. So don't despair, if you want to :

then you are already way ahead of the pack! :-)

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) Sorry, 'plausible deniability' means : it sounds true but non-one can disprove it. You'll see it as a lubricant generously applied within many modern news engines.

Ah Comfort food :-)

Genetically Modified Maize in Mexico: Varied Responses to Technology
Arechavala-Vargas, R.; Diaz-Perez, C.; Huerta-Ruvalcaba, J.P.
Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 2007 Atlanta Conference on
Date: 19-20 Oct. 2007, Pages: 1 - 7
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACSTIP.2007.4472877

Abstract
Mexico is known as the place of origin of maize in the world. Around 50 races and more than 400 varieties have been identified. For centuries, it has been one of the main sources of nutrients for the population. As genetically modified organisms (GMO's) have begun to gain salience as an economical alternative to grain shortage, social issues emerge that create increasing tensions with groups and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that work for the protection of biodiversity, and for the preservation of traditions and culture. These tensions manifest themselves as opposition to the use of GMO's, and as the challenging of the role that multinational corporations play in the national economy. Among the general population, however, there is little knowledge about the possibilities, the risks and the economic impact of using GM seeds. The purpose of this research is to assess the outlook that corn producers have about the eventual use of GM seed in their farms, on the basis of a project that aims to characterize agricultural production units in different regions of the country, and to identify those variables that determine productivity, profitability and purchase decisions in maize-producing farms. Fieldwork was done in states that are considered to be representative of different patterns of technical and economic behavior in corn production through semi structured interviews with farmers and with representatives of producers' associations. The interviews assessed knowledge and attitudes towards technology and GMO's production patterns, and technical decision making in the farms. Secondary data analysis and time- series data were used to assess tendencies in economic variables and to monitor public opinion on issues related to GM corn production. Results point towards sharply stratified patterns of knowledge and opinion about GMO's that follow social and economic differences that are also deepening. Lower-level farmers tend to have no knowledge about hybrids a- nd GMO's, and tend also to follow unprofitable practices in their production units. At the other end we find high-level large-scale farms, with intensive patterns of production and use of technologically sophisticated inputs and machinery.

With regard to autism, We have come someway regard to it and a long way to go.. There was a lot of bad science in the past Very Bad Science
Refrigerator Mother. Nothing but contempt for Kanner from this end and all the doctors who took an oath to do no harm.

Edit: I know parents who did not seek help for their children because of this label..

Couple of points re: autism.

- the word as used now is rather different than it's initial use some decades ago. So much so that often the phrase 'autism spectrum disorder' is now in vogue. I'm assuming this is probably because 'autism' fundamentally defies neat classification, and that workers in the field are perhaps unsure of what each other mean. The nett effect is to greatly broaden the number of people this phrase would apply to. ( eg. in recent years it has been stated there is an 'epidemic' of diabetes without mention that the diagnostic criteria for inclusion have been significantly softened. And now there is talk of 'pre-diabetes', some of which is simply talk amongst researchers as they investigate population characteristics, while other is an out & out tactic to whip up interest for some other aim - can't sell a cure if you haven't a disease! )

- features of 'autism' are what we all exhibit anyway, so it's a matter of degree.

- 'autism' does not equal 'diseased' or 'bad'. It's one of those assumptions that comes from the days when the 'anyone who is different must be worse' social impulses were stronger than now. ( well, I hope it is weaker now! )

As regards blaming maternal characteristics for child personalities etc then to the extent that such things are genetically influenced it's likely to include some level of correlation b/w observed effects of maternal genes ( phenotype ) which are thus often shared with offspring. One can have differing expression of genes depending on other genes present in the same individual ( including the gender specific ones on the X and Y chromosomes, so let's look at the Dads also ). But this is too vague an hypothesis probably to be readily testable - and I don't think it was what the original investigators were referring to. You'd have to do an entire 'nature vs nurture' long term study, possibly multi-generational and including all the nearby family tree, to sort this. Mind you many twin study programs do exactly that - my wife has been enrolled in one since birth - as they can assist in teasing out the environmental vs constitutional factors.

Cheers, Mike.