ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Response to Response

Response to Response The response by Fred Gould and Jennifer Kuzma1 to my description of the fundamental flaws in two reports from the National Academy of Science/National Research Council2 is reminiscent of the story about the drunk searching for his lost keys under the streetlight. A friend who happens upon the fellow asks if he's sure that he lost them there. The drunk answers, "No, I'm sure they're not here, but the light is better." Gould and Kuzma concede the consensus that the risk-r

Henry Miller

Response to Response

The response by Fred Gould and Jennifer Kuzma1 to my description of the fundamental flaws in two reports from the National Academy of Science/National Research Council2 is reminiscent of the story about the drunk searching for his lost keys under the streetlight. A friend who happens upon the fellow asks if he's sure that he lost them there. The drunk answers, "No, I'm sure they're not here, but the light is better."

Gould and Kuzma concede the consensus that the risk-related characteristics of a product, rather than the techniques used to make it, should determine the need for and extent of regulation. But they make an insupportable leap of logic by asserting that if "this principle is taken to its simplest logical conclusion, there are two options: regulate all plant varieties or regulate none," and that because both are unacceptable, a tiered approach applicable only...

Interested in reading more?

Magaizne Cover

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT