Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
2PM at Moscone Center
Report from Moscone Center
Just got back from Moscone Center. LOTS and LOTS of conference attendees everywhere -- maybe going to lunch? Many attendees who seem to have come from overseas. I saw large groups of Indians and Arabs conference attendees.
Right now, there is a group of pro-biotech protesters outnumbering the few anti-biotech protesters right outside the main entrance. There were 5-6 people holding signs that read "biotech saved my grandmother's life" There was one person holding a sign about GMO food and they were arguing with one conference attendee who was saying that the biotech conference is only partly about GMO food and mostly about medical and pharmaceutical research.
I saw another funny exchange a few blocks away from Moscone. A punky looking kid was trying to explain why he thought there should be protests to an Indian conference attendee. It began because the Indian guy is a research with stem cells and he was confused because he thought only the fanatic right-wing conservatives in the USA opposed biotech research like this. The punky kid was trying to explain that it all "boiled down to nanotech" and that nanotech would kill everything. The researcher guy kept saying that nanotech was a small, academic part of the biotech field and not too much industry stuff revolved around it. I think the punky kid didn't really know what stem cell research was. It was a humorous exchange because the Indian guy was obviously extraordinarily intelligent and understood the science and this kid with a Social Distortion t-shirt was trying to convince him of some kind of nanotech conspiracy that must be stopped at any cost.
This is just what I saw. Not sure if I'm going to any more events.
Right now, there is a group of pro-biotech protesters outnumbering the few anti-biotech protesters right outside the main entrance. There were 5-6 people holding signs that read "biotech saved my grandmother's life" There was one person holding a sign about GMO food and they were arguing with one conference attendee who was saying that the biotech conference is only partly about GMO food and mostly about medical and pharmaceutical research.
I saw another funny exchange a few blocks away from Moscone. A punky looking kid was trying to explain why he thought there should be protests to an Indian conference attendee. It began because the Indian guy is a research with stem cells and he was confused because he thought only the fanatic right-wing conservatives in the USA opposed biotech research like this. The punky kid was trying to explain that it all "boiled down to nanotech" and that nanotech would kill everything. The researcher guy kept saying that nanotech was a small, academic part of the biotech field and not too much industry stuff revolved around it. I think the punky kid didn't really know what stem cell research was. It was a humorous exchange because the Indian guy was obviously extraordinarily intelligent and understood the science and this kid with a Social Distortion t-shirt was trying to convince him of some kind of nanotech conspiracy that must be stopped at any cost.
This is just what I saw. Not sure if I'm going to any more events.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Sure they come out after 2pm: the free lunch in the West Hall finished at 2pm, and the fact that they come out is probably attributed to some interest in what's going on. They all have been walking to police lines this morning to get into the conference centre, they had their coffeebreak and lunch to talk about it, and i think it's a good thing that they do come out.
For pro-biotech protestors: what we have seen in Europe, Africa and Asia is that biotech companies either misuse patients' organisations or even hire actors to play roles that are needed for the corporate PR spin. It might have been some of them.
And on a last note, it's easy to make fun of others. Sure, in the heat of the moment, and especially when you have been up at 5 in the morning, the argumentation might get a bit twisted. But nanotechnology is an important issue (http://www.etcgroup.org/search.asp?theme=11), even if it is not necessarily connect to phamaceutical research. So even if some activist didn't get the message across s/he was at least getting in contact with the attendants of the conference. What did you do?
For pro-biotech protestors: what we have seen in Europe, Africa and Asia is that biotech companies either misuse patients' organisations or even hire actors to play roles that are needed for the corporate PR spin. It might have been some of them.
And on a last note, it's easy to make fun of others. Sure, in the heat of the moment, and especially when you have been up at 5 in the morning, the argumentation might get a bit twisted. But nanotechnology is an important issue (http://www.etcgroup.org/search.asp?theme=11), even if it is not necessarily connect to phamaceutical research. So even if some activist didn't get the message across s/he was at least getting in contact with the attendants of the conference. What did you do?
As one of the "pro-biotech protesters", I can say we didn't get any funding from anyone...it was just a case of showing up and seeing some other people who were pro-biotech (in responsible, open-licensed, and beneficial ways), holding up signs, and talking to people.
We talked to some of the "anti biotech" people, and it turns out we all largely agreed SOME biotech can be good. We think civil lawsuits and voluntary industry labeling should take care of a lot of the food concerns, and insurance underwriters will enforce a far higher standard of biosafety than the government ever could.
A lot of biotech companies are evil -- they do criminal things, mislead the public, etc. The FDA is horrible too. But that doesn't mean all biotech research is necessarily bad.
(and the 4 of us are all anti-war, etc., and were at the saturday thing as anti-war...)
We talked to some of the "anti biotech" people, and it turns out we all largely agreed SOME biotech can be good. We think civil lawsuits and voluntary industry labeling should take care of a lot of the food concerns, and insurance underwriters will enforce a far higher standard of biosafety than the government ever could.
A lot of biotech companies are evil -- they do criminal things, mislead the public, etc. The FDA is horrible too. But that doesn't mean all biotech research is necessarily bad.
(and the 4 of us are all anti-war, etc., and were at the saturday thing as anti-war...)
Well, I use genetic sequencing as a tool in my research and have been a $5/hr glassware washer a few years ago in a development lab looking at zebrafish eggs (actually, it's important to realize that many 'biotech' workers in labs who don't have a phd earn fairly low wages - definitely at a lower scale than the dotcom workers of a few years ago who were making $60,000+ with just a bachelors. I know many people with a bachelors who only make $11-$15 in labs).
Anyway, most are not so simpleminded that they can't see that the main targets of complaint are genetically modified crops that are foisted on the public (i.e. not in a democratic fashion where food is labeled and consumers may vote with their dollars at the store), along with some of the more dubious lines of human health research. It would be unfortunate if a few protesters are fanatics who reject all cancer research, but I really doubt it. And likewise, I really would hope that most people at biotech companies aren't a bunch of autistic freaks who are smart at science but politically/socially illiterate, and have never picked up a magazine and read about any of the issues. I am fairly sure that the majority of Ignacio Chapela's department at Berkeley supports him. As for the cellular biology people, I couldn' quite guess what their spectrum of opinion is, but you can usually rely on he principle that scientists are interested in their science and have not gone through indoctrination at a school of business. I totally gave moral support to the people at the convergence center and would have been out there if I was in SF, but I couldn't quite tolerate a primitivist rejecting all health research.
Anyway, most are not so simpleminded that they can't see that the main targets of complaint are genetically modified crops that are foisted on the public (i.e. not in a democratic fashion where food is labeled and consumers may vote with their dollars at the store), along with some of the more dubious lines of human health research. It would be unfortunate if a few protesters are fanatics who reject all cancer research, but I really doubt it. And likewise, I really would hope that most people at biotech companies aren't a bunch of autistic freaks who are smart at science but politically/socially illiterate, and have never picked up a magazine and read about any of the issues. I am fairly sure that the majority of Ignacio Chapela's department at Berkeley supports him. As for the cellular biology people, I couldn' quite guess what their spectrum of opinion is, but you can usually rely on he principle that scientists are interested in their science and have not gone through indoctrination at a school of business. I totally gave moral support to the people at the convergence center and would have been out there if I was in SF, but I couldn't quite tolerate a primitivist rejecting all health research.
In most industries where I worked there are people on a management track on those on a tech track.
The managers are paid to be overly optimistic and always hype the latest fad. Thats partly because at most places I've worked managers do some sales (or at least help close deals) so people are encouraged to never look on the negative side of anything; managers and soon to be managers seem geinuinely excited about the latest tech trend, management paradigm, hot stock and all the short lived buzz words in business and tech journals.
Tech workers, on the other hand, always seem cynical about new trends since the managers always oversell what can be done to clients and the public. Some people right out of school may be excited about new technologies and the potential to change the world, but after a few years everyone gets to the point where you realize that anything mentioned about your industry on the news (and even NPR talk shows that pretend to be intellectual and nonbiased) borders on lies because the truth of the world is too boring to make for good entertainment and the people the media likes to interview tend to be borderline crackpots who like the excitement of science fiction hype.
The managers are paid to be overly optimistic and always hype the latest fad. Thats partly because at most places I've worked managers do some sales (or at least help close deals) so people are encouraged to never look on the negative side of anything; managers and soon to be managers seem geinuinely excited about the latest tech trend, management paradigm, hot stock and all the short lived buzz words in business and tech journals.
Tech workers, on the other hand, always seem cynical about new trends since the managers always oversell what can be done to clients and the public. Some people right out of school may be excited about new technologies and the potential to change the world, but after a few years everyone gets to the point where you realize that anything mentioned about your industry on the news (and even NPR talk shows that pretend to be intellectual and nonbiased) borders on lies because the truth of the world is too boring to make for good entertainment and the people the media likes to interview tend to be borderline crackpots who like the excitement of science fiction hype.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network