A slight rant about organic agriculture

The scientific blogging community has largely become a voice not just for science, but also for skeptical inquiry. Legions of established scientists, scientists in training, citizen scientists, science enthusiasts, and everyone in between have made it a personal collective mission to evaluate claims about the world at large with an eye towards interpretations backed by evidence. Rightly so, this cadre of skeptics tears apart claims of the paranormal, faith healing, alternative medicine and other quackery in the name of evidence and reason.

There is a sort of "dark side" to all this, however, in that some things get a bad reputation due to their close proximity or endorsement by people who generally accept worldviews contrary to those of the skeptic army. One such field that has a tendency to get shit all over by skeptics is the organic foods movement. One would assume that a movement that largely aims to reduce pesticide use in farming, decrease the dependence on monocultured growing practices, and take a skeptical view on GMO crops wouldn't be too difficult of a sell for most anyone with a basic understanding of ecology. Unfortunately the tendency for proponents of organic agriculture to have a decidedly "anti-science" attitude tends to draw the skeptic community like flies, and they waste no time denouncing these "wackos" and criticizing the entire shebang. Now, it is fair to say that there are some legitimate criticisms of the organic movement, especially with the increasing desire to commercialize and oversell the claims made...but this doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the pesticide-free bathwater!

Steak Made from Poops?

I pretty much doubt it. Not only is this wildly implausible, the people reporting the story don't even bother to see if the words they are using are actual science words.

Like this quote:

After isolating those proteins in the lab, Ikeda's team then combined them with a reaction enhancer and put them in an exploder. What eventually came out was no filet mignon, but it was edible.

a reaction enhancer and an exploder.

Its like these people aren't even trying.

Now, maybe I could see if "reaction enhancer" was a weird way of saying "PCR", or maybe some sort of peptide synthesis but they put them in an exploder? Come on now, homologous recombinaltion tiniker at least tried to sound like science gobbledeygook!

Salon is reporting, thankfully, that this story is most likely a hoax

Evolution and Rape?

[trigger warning, potentially]

I thought we were done with this, but apparently not.

When people ask me why I am extremely critical of Evolutionary Psychology, it is so easy to point them to articles and events like this- some professor or other decides to claim that things like rape are adaptive behaviors. This idea is, of course, ludicrous for multiple reasons.

I am glad that other scientists (and other entomologists even!) levy similar criticisms against Evolutionary Psychology as I do. One that I constantly make goes along this line: "Simply demonstrating ubiquity of a behavior or trait in a species does not demonstrate or explain its evolutionary origin, nor does it necessarily make that trait an adaptation."

Buggirl makes a similar point-

Sure, all current human behavior has been shaped by our evolutionary past. But to argue on top of that truth that everything we do is not only adaptive, but must have been selected for somehow, is ridiculous and reductionist.  There isn’t any data in these studies that shows that behavior is heritable, or that it conveys fitness benefits.  It’s usually just “This happens a lot. Ergo, it must be important evolutionarily.”

I want to take a second and say something sort of tangential as well.

As many of you know, I am going to be an entomologist.
So I have an insect biology book I picked up a while ago, written by one of the (now deceased) biggest deals in entomology- H.E Evans

I was reading through it and kept seeing "Thornhill" cited over and over...naturally, the only "Thornhill" I knew of was rather infamous.

I did some digging and realized that it was the same Thornhill.
 
Once again, I agree with buggirl when she says this:

Randy Thornhill is cited copiously through the papers of Shackelford. Who is this Thornhill dude, anyway?
Thornhill claims that rape is an adaptation by low status men to reproduce.  He’s a pundit that shows up on TV to talk about women’s estrus cycles and tips at strip clubs.
He’s an entomologist.
No. Really.
The source of his insights about women and sexuality? These insects.  Scorpionflies.
“Wait a minute, Bug Girl,” you may be thinking.  ”This dude used his observations of forced copulation in insects to theorize about rape in humans?”  Why, yes, he did go there.
And I don’t know how he got from point A to point B either, because he seems to have passed through Points Q, R, S, and 42 along the way.

This pretty much highlights my thought process when I realized this, especially the bolded bits- glad to see I am not alone in thinking that this is a very unsatisfactory comparison.