Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Sex, Biology, And The Supreme Court

During United States Supreme Court oral arguments today (April 28, 2015) in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, "biology" and its cognates were uttered 27 times in relation to whether or not there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  John J. Bursch, Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, opposing same-sex marriage, repeatedly argued variations of the following mantras:  "[W]e want to encourage children to be bonded to their biological mother and father" and "[W]e want to forever link children with their biological mom and dad when that's possible."  Justice Elena Kagan, echoing several other justices, offered this challenging retort:  "[I]t's hard to see how permitting same-­sex marriage discourages people from being bonded with their biological children."  In addition, it was noted repeatedly that many married couples either adopt children born to other parents - as Chief Justice Roberts and his wife have done - or have no children at all.

Bursch leaned heavily on "biology" to support his moral arguments against same-sex marriage.  Yet, biology and morality make strange and unmarriageable bedfellows.  Biology can, indeed, shine considerable light on a number of social issues discussed in the oral arguments, including bases for sexual preferences, means and patterns of procreation, and even why "fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children".  However, pair-bonded humans reproduced successfully and prodigiously for aeons before the invention of the institution of marriage.  So, any necessary connection between marriage, bonding, and "biology" remains unsubstantiated at best.

Biological evidence can be useful to support legal arguments.  The use of DNA evidence to convict and exonerate criminal suspects may be a success, but the attempt to use "biology" to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples is a failure.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Mark Lynas On GMOs

Way back on January 4, 2013, in Mark Lynas Recants on GM Agriculture, I discussed high-profile former GMO-critic Mark Lynas' change of heart in favor of genetic modification of agricultural organisms.  In an op-ed entitled "How I Got Converted to GMO Food", published in the Sunday New York Times on April 26, 2015, Lynas offered his impassioned advocacy of the agricultural benefits of genetic engineering.  Here is a remarkable passage from the article:
After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s. 
There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.

As I described in Intellectual Property as the Third Dimension of GMO Regulation, the history of opposition to GM food is replete with scientific myths and reversals of rationale and opinion.  Even so, it is remarkable to watch the continuing metamorphosis of Lynas' views from those of sworn opponent to those of passionate proponent.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Climate Change Shocker!

The world of climate change science was rocked today, April 1, 2015, by the following discombobulating revelation. Who knows what to think anymore?