Wouldn't that just give the Republican competition an opportunity to say that he's being influenced by tree-hugging hippies?

Remember: An accusation doesn't have to be true, it just has to have some believability.  That's politics.

Then we start to beat him up if he pisses us off. Our work will not end on election day. It will just be starting. When we elect a president, even if we suport him, we elect someone who we may have to oppose. That's life in the big city.

Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH

Randy Cunningham

Just because you're corporate doesn't mean you're a bad scientist.  I get the concern, but let's not paint with too broad a brush.

I have a somewhat gut reaction to people invoking the precautionary principle, no offense intended to anyone that does. I think in most situations it's a bunch of BS.

Yes, there are clear situations where an action carries risks that are overbearing. For example, outright atmospheric mercury release, or allowing sewage to enter drinking water supplies. These actions/events are clearly deserving of the invocation of the precautionary principle.

There are situations where risk is minimal, for example, I leave the house today to take a walk. In principle, barring any catastrophic event, including other's mistakes, this action should not have any important risks.

There are events in between that have a much stronger risk, but the risk may not be overbearing. This is the area, where precautionary principle starts to wither. Where do we draw the line in terms of how far do we take the principle? There are inherent risks in nearly every decision made by humans, including the possibility of striking an endangered animal in a car, etc. These risks can be relatively high or relatively low, but in all cases they exist. Even the minimal risk example above contains a certain amount of risk. This is where cost-benefit analysis typically comes in to assess the cost of taking action versus the cost of not taking action.

However, I find that typically the same group of people that asks for the precautionary principle to be considered ask for cost-benefit analysis to not take place. At that point, it becomes a self-serving request for the first, in essence a means to stop an action from happening based on the set of beliefs that are inherent to that person.

I believe that this becomes the crux of my argument. Any one who asks for the precautionary principle should immediately ask for cost-benefit analysis by an independent unbiased third-party.

My post was not intended as an argument against the above topic, but rather as a concern for the use of 'precautionary principle' that I typically see.

End transmission.

It is easy to judge people by who they choose to have as advisors.  In fact, I'd say you certainly should judge them, in some capacity, based on that decision.  But I also think that we have a responsibility to put ourselves out there and perhaps "corporate scientists" are just more willing to do that.

Now we all can't be advising the presidential candidates at once, but who has volunteered to advise their local city council or state representatives?  Who among us is going to step up and say, "I am a scientist and I want to help your campaign by serving as an advisor or consultant on science policy during this election cycle and potentially during your term in office"?

The truth is, scientists from all backgrounds - corporate, independent research institutions, academia, etc. - need to get out there and make themselves players in the process, scientific advisory committees will continue to be made up of the people who show up.

is real science according to you dolts.