Who proposed the precautionary principle and whether they've acted in accordance with it is irrelevant when the considering the matter of whether it should apply to GMO food.
The BMJ have run a campaign to make more clinical trial data about Tamiflu public, along with questioning its effectiveness given the large sum of public money spent on it. It seems to me that their reporting is the main reason this story has seen the light of day.
"In 1954, Roger Bannister set a world record, running one mile in 3:59.4. The 4 minute mile had become a white whale, with medical experts arguing that the human body wasn’t capable of completing it. Prior to Bannister, the previous one mile record had stood at 4:01 for nine years. Less than a year later, someone else ran a sub 4 minute mile. Today, hundreds of American runners, and likely thousands around the world have achieved this feat."
This is often noted as a mental breakthrough, but what isn't told about this story is that Bannister had the advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers. Those that broke the 4-min mile after Bannister did it because they too took advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers.
http://sportsscientists.com/2014/12/2-hour-marathon-4-min-mi...
"The difference that track surface makes is enormous – biomechanists estimate that modern synthetic tracks are worth 1.5% compared to the cinder tracks that Bannister and Landy ran on (some cinder being better than others, of course). And that’s why, as my friend David Esptein so elegantly presented at TED, of the 1,034 men who have broken 4-min for the mile since 1954, only 530 would remain if you applied that “correction factor” that predicts that synthetic tracks are worth about 1.5% per lap compared to the cinder tracks of the 1950. It means only 10 men per decade have joined the club since Bannister created it, and that should give you some context to this argument that “Four minutes used to be impossible, and now it is easy”."
Really appreciate that link - and definitely a fact I will tuck away. Pacesetters and track surface... fascinating!
Still, I think the fact that the fastest man in the world at the time had tried multiple times to beat it and could not definitely puts a damper on anyone else trying to break a record.
Clearly technology and social forces were at work. Believing you can do something does not make it so. But NOT believing you can do something sure as hell isn't going to help you make it happen.
> Still, I think the fact that the fastest man in the world at the time had tried multiple times to beat it and could not definitely puts a damper on anyone else trying to break a record.
It didn't put a damper on Bannister. In fact, you could argue that the press coverage around the limit motivated more people to try to break four minutes for the acclaim. Without that narrative, maybe Bannister wouldn't have been motivated enough to do it.
> Clearly technology and social forces were at work. Believing you can do something does not make it so. But NOT believing you can do something sure as hell isn't going to help you make it happen.
You may be right, but the 4-minute-mile anecdote doesn't show this. In Landy's case, it wasn't new-found belief, but technology and knowledge that pushed him under four minutes.
> Really it's just not worth even reading whatever the popular press has to say about a particular strand of research, especially when lines like "regenerate the entire immune system" are thrown around.
"Boffins, are you having trouble communicating the fruits of your labour to a wider audience?
Have you spent five thankless years going through stool samples in an attempt to find new treatments for giardiasis only to have your work written up as a single paragraph on page 34 of the Rochdale Observer?
Well, worry no more. Drawing on decades of journalistic experience, the Behind the Headlines team has come up with the definitive guide to getting your work featured prominently on News at Ten. Simply follow the 10 tips below and before you know it you’ll be talking p-values with Phil and Holly on ITV's This Morning."
---
This reads like a Register article after Lewis Page has forgotten to take his pills again.
My artist friend didn't seem too worried by it. I have no idea if this is common in the industry, but he was saying that much of the artwork is already outsourced to cheaper foreign artists.
I cannot speak to this study in particular, but it is worth noting that a recent meta-study found that the science supporting meditation isn't as strong as people tend to believe: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/meditation-nation
Meditation has been touted as a cure for practically everything, a reputation it cannot possibly live up to. This reputation is already creating a back lash -- this article is one example: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/06/mindfulness_truthiness_probl...
I think meditation has something genuine to offer, but it's going to take some time before there are enough quality scientific studies for a true picture about meditation to arise. And before that happens, I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum of public opinion swung over to the other side.
For example, vulnerable individuals with a history of trauma may approach meditation thinking it will cure all their problems and then be surprised by intense memories of their trauma resurfacing, preventing them from going about their day-to-day life. Such people rightly feel that meditation has been incorrectly advertised.
I think if we attempt to look past her poor explanation, she appears to be experiencing something that she has no obvious rational concept to communicate, and so when asked to relate the experience in rational concepts she does know, she has unhelpfully hit on "color".
