Jun 16, 2023 06:33 PM
Following Europe’s lead, New York State is poised to ban most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides. Here’s why that will hurt consumers, farmers — and the environment
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/...vironment/
INTRO: The state of New York is on the brink of a banning a pesticide that is critical for many farmers. Last week, legislators passed the “Birds and Bees Protection Act,” which would prevent growers from accessing neonicotinoids, aka “neonics,” a commonly used class of insecticides considered one of the world’s environmentally safest. The bill awaits the governor’s signature.
There is no safer replacement product nor one as effective.
In order to make the legislation less objectionable, it was amended to allow the sale of neonics on a product-by-product basis unless the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation provides a written justification for emergency use every year. This might seem like a good political compromise: Urban liberal politicians can say they did something for their constituents, and conservatives, many of whose constituents are farmers in rural areas, can say they did their best and prevented an outright ban.
However, this “solution” will end badly for growers and the food system. How can I predict that? The experiment has already been run: For the past five years, an identical scenario has been playing out among European growers, politicians, and anti-pesticide activist groups. Spoiler alert: this saga has proven catastrophic for growers, birds, bees, consumers, and the environment – and the same would be true in New York... (MORE - details)
Anatomy of a scientific scandal
https://www.city-journal.org/article/ana...ic-scandal
INTRO: The scientific method is the best way for humans to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, and correct mistaken beliefs. Scientific journals play a vital role in this process, encouraging rational, evidence-based debate and the pursuit of truth above all. But since the inner workings of these journals remain largely opaque, citizens, policymakers, and science journalists can struggle to discern when politics has compromised a given publication—especially when ideological agendas are couched in scientific language and given the veneer of scientific authority.
Medical journals writ large are on the brink of such ideological capture, if they haven’t already succumbed to it. Findings that contradict the prevailing “gender-affirming” model of care for transgender-identifying youth, or offer even mild critiques, have become nearly impossible to publish. Still, rare exceptions exist, including the Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB), a journal published by Springer Nature. This publication has distinguished itself by its willingness to facilitate viewpoint diversity in gender medicine—until now.
An alarming recent event highlights the vulnerability of the scientific endeavor to politics. ASB is a primary target for activist researchers who will not tolerate dissent from their views, and a months-long campaign by activists to pressure Springer Nature into retracting an ASB paper that they didn’t like has culminated in success. While the activists’ desire to censor inconvenient research should come as no surprise, Springer Nature’s capitulation to their demands represents a profound betrayal of scientific integrity and the publisher’s commitment to truth.
The paper in question, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was authored by researchers Suzanna Diaz (a pseudonym) and Michael Bailey and published in ASB on March 29. Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), a newly proposed pathway to gender dysphoria, was first described by the researcher Lisa Littman in 2018; the theory may help explain the documented surge in cases of gender dysphoria among adolescents and young adults who had previously exhibited no gender-related issues. Littman proposed and provided supporting evidence that social factors have at least partly caused the surge, especially among girls.
Such a hypothesis might appear plausible, or at least a straightforward empirical matter to be decided through evidence-based examination. But it violates the dominant narrative favored by medicalization activists that the rise in trans identities stems from an increase in societal acceptance of “gender diversity.” Evidence supporting ROGD would call into question the “gender-affirming” model of care, an approach premised on the notion that kids can know their “gender identity” from very early on and will rarely, if ever, change their minds about it. This philosophical belief system, which flies in the face of centuries of accumulated wisdom on human development, has been pithily summarized with the phrase: “trans kids know who they are.” The affirmative model guides health-care providers to “affirm” (i.e., agree with) a child’s self-declared identity and facilitate access to hormones and surgeries, all in order to align the child’s body with his or her felt gender identity. Consequently, activists have exerted intense efforts to undermine ROGD research at every opportunity.
Littman’s 2018 paper generated intense backlash from activists, who successfully pressured the journal that published her findings (PLoS One) to take the unusual step of initiating a second round of post-publication peer review... (MORE - missing details)
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2023/...vironment/
INTRO: The state of New York is on the brink of a banning a pesticide that is critical for many farmers. Last week, legislators passed the “Birds and Bees Protection Act,” which would prevent growers from accessing neonicotinoids, aka “neonics,” a commonly used class of insecticides considered one of the world’s environmentally safest. The bill awaits the governor’s signature.
There is no safer replacement product nor one as effective.
In order to make the legislation less objectionable, it was amended to allow the sale of neonics on a product-by-product basis unless the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation provides a written justification for emergency use every year. This might seem like a good political compromise: Urban liberal politicians can say they did something for their constituents, and conservatives, many of whose constituents are farmers in rural areas, can say they did their best and prevented an outright ban.
However, this “solution” will end badly for growers and the food system. How can I predict that? The experiment has already been run: For the past five years, an identical scenario has been playing out among European growers, politicians, and anti-pesticide activist groups. Spoiler alert: this saga has proven catastrophic for growers, birds, bees, consumers, and the environment – and the same would be true in New York... (MORE - details)
Anatomy of a scientific scandal
https://www.city-journal.org/article/ana...ic-scandal
INTRO: The scientific method is the best way for humans to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, and correct mistaken beliefs. Scientific journals play a vital role in this process, encouraging rational, evidence-based debate and the pursuit of truth above all. But since the inner workings of these journals remain largely opaque, citizens, policymakers, and science journalists can struggle to discern when politics has compromised a given publication—especially when ideological agendas are couched in scientific language and given the veneer of scientific authority.
Medical journals writ large are on the brink of such ideological capture, if they haven’t already succumbed to it. Findings that contradict the prevailing “gender-affirming” model of care for transgender-identifying youth, or offer even mild critiques, have become nearly impossible to publish. Still, rare exceptions exist, including the Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB), a journal published by Springer Nature. This publication has distinguished itself by its willingness to facilitate viewpoint diversity in gender medicine—until now.
An alarming recent event highlights the vulnerability of the scientific endeavor to politics. ASB is a primary target for activist researchers who will not tolerate dissent from their views, and a months-long campaign by activists to pressure Springer Nature into retracting an ASB paper that they didn’t like has culminated in success. While the activists’ desire to censor inconvenient research should come as no surprise, Springer Nature’s capitulation to their demands represents a profound betrayal of scientific integrity and the publisher’s commitment to truth.
The paper in question, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was authored by researchers Suzanna Diaz (a pseudonym) and Michael Bailey and published in ASB on March 29. Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), a newly proposed pathway to gender dysphoria, was first described by the researcher Lisa Littman in 2018; the theory may help explain the documented surge in cases of gender dysphoria among adolescents and young adults who had previously exhibited no gender-related issues. Littman proposed and provided supporting evidence that social factors have at least partly caused the surge, especially among girls.
Such a hypothesis might appear plausible, or at least a straightforward empirical matter to be decided through evidence-based examination. But it violates the dominant narrative favored by medicalization activists that the rise in trans identities stems from an increase in societal acceptance of “gender diversity.” Evidence supporting ROGD would call into question the “gender-affirming” model of care, an approach premised on the notion that kids can know their “gender identity” from very early on and will rarely, if ever, change their minds about it. This philosophical belief system, which flies in the face of centuries of accumulated wisdom on human development, has been pithily summarized with the phrase: “trans kids know who they are.” The affirmative model guides health-care providers to “affirm” (i.e., agree with) a child’s self-declared identity and facilitate access to hormones and surgeries, all in order to align the child’s body with his or her felt gender identity. Consequently, activists have exerted intense efforts to undermine ROGD research at every opportunity.
Littman’s 2018 paper generated intense backlash from activists, who successfully pressured the journal that published her findings (PLoS One) to take the unusual step of initiating a second round of post-publication peer review... (MORE - missing details)