Steve,
One of the articles that was generated out of the "Social Text"
affair that I found very interesting was Dorothy Nelkin "The Science
Wars: What is at Stake?" in Chronicles of Higher Education:

http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/articles/dnelkin.html

I think Nelkin touches on some issues which are germain to the points
you are making - but she is putting it all in a context of the
changing role of the 'scientist' in culture - especially after the
end of the Cold War which is changing things quite a bit.

"Finally, changes in science also reflect growing corporate influence
on research. As economic competition overshadows military goals, many
scientists are shifting their priorities to commercially relevant
research devoted to the solution of short term problems. Predictably,
corporate sponsors demand research in the interest of profit. Thus,
the vision of science as driven by scientific curiosity has been
clouded leaving the impression that scientific information is less a
public resource--the basis after all of the original contract-- than
a private commodity. "

>John
>
>In the midst of a major system rollout - fated by a major systems bug - the
>trouble with the type of applications/systems that I deal with is that they
>never fulfil the users requirements - I feel like Norman Foster must have felt
>when he discovered his bridge was unable to deal with people walking across it
>without undulating like a snake...
>
>However - The lie exists in the continuing statements that a) GM
>foods are safe
>- rather than the true statement that 'we do not know if they are
>safe but they
>probably are' - b) That as as a result of the genetic changes being made less
>pesticides will be required - whereas the truth is that nature evolves and the
>evolutionary cycle for bacteria, virus and insect is rather short.
>
>The greatest shame lies with the third world scientists who mistakenly imagine
>that GM crops will in some way or other free them from the economic tyranny of
>the western transnationals and the equivalent tyranny of nature.

My Gosh - now I'm remembering the "Movietone News" at the Saturday
Matinee when I was a kid.  There was a wonderful segment about new
crops being introduced into countires like Mexico in the early
fifties - "High Protein Corn" as I recall, under the auspices of the
US "Green Revolution" program.  As I later understood, there was a
small band of economists in Mexico City who saw the writing on the
wall, and campaigned against the program.  They claimed the program
would create two economies in Mexico, since the program required
substantial agribusiness loans, and would result in produce that was
out of reach, economically, to Mexicans.  These radical economists
were branded negatively in La Capital - who could seriously be
against better maiz?  The success of the program, however, proved to
be the downfall of the Mexican economy.

But the question of culpability is open, I think.  I can imagine a
botanist working of corn varietals without having a particular
knowledge of or concern about the economic consequences.  Or maybe
not.  When Hubert Humphreys was appointed to the Green Revolution
committee in the Senate, his first comment after reviewing the
program was something to the effect of "This is a strange program.
Ultimately it will put the control of the Mexican economy in the
hands of the US.  That might not be so bad, as the Mexicans have
mismanaged it for so long."

Erik Mattila

>
>Except in the social and political realms science does not and
>cannot deal with
>truth only with various states of the probable...
>
>regards
>
>sdv