Adam Rutherford in the comments at Comment is free does a better job than Sunny Hundal, so let's accept Sense About Science's Tweeted suggestion and promote him to top billing:
Some interesting points, and a considered pov, as usual. A couple of things worth noting. I'm interested in the longview of opposition to biotechnology that is based on recombinant DNA. Since its discovery/invention in the early 1970s, there has been opposition, understandable anxieties about potential duel use for what was then shockingly new. The scientists themselves volunteered a moratorium in research in order to consider if and how to proceed. This culminated in a landmark meeting in 75 in Asilomar, CA, which is held up as a paradigm of responsible scientific behaviour.
In 1978, following this meeting, there was an acrimonious split between some scientists and Friends of the Earth, who until that point had been united (Paul Ehrlich was one leading the schism), on the grounds that FoE were not addressing the science, merely viscerally opposing progress. Here's a quote from one Nobel Prize winner from 78:
'I fear that such groups thrive on bad news, and the more the public worries about the environment, the more likely we are to keep providing them with the funds that they need to keep their organizations growing'. OTR another said: 'these private agents of the public interest are not elected, nor are they necessarily in touch with the views of rank and-file members of the groups they speak for'. Paul Ehrlich: 'the potential benefits from recombinant DNA research are so great that it would be foolhardy to restrict such research largely on the basis of imagined risks.'
I've studied this field in depth, and I cannot see that any of the opposition that existed in 75 or 78 has changed at all. FoE still lead the charge, along with groups like ETC, but their arguments or tactics have not changed at all, while the science has progressed, and the data mounted continually, as it is wont to do in science. This leads me to think that they are demonstrably anti-science, rather than addressing the issues in a disinterested way. It is my belief that the Green Party are viscerally opposed to the science, typified by Jenny Jones' tweet last night: 'For those who want to understand anti GM concern, on why it won't feed the world or be a miracle cure: gmfreeze.org'
I read that as being a pre-judged, which is an ideological opposition to scientifically acquired knowledge.
The issue of ownership is indeed a problem, and the behaviour of monolithic companies such as Monsanto has had a negative impact on biotech-driven farming. But this is a problem of capitalism, not science. The Rothamsted scientists have made it repeatedly and explicitly clear that their research is not to be patented nor part of commercial concerns. Therefore, it seems perverse to target (potentially criminally) genuine research that would address some of the explicitly stated concerns of the anti-GM lobby.
Of course, the absurdity of organic farming being some kind of holy saviour of agriculture is nonsense of the highest order. The definitions are ripe for exploitation by any unscrupulous business. Just in case anyone has any doubts, farming, is the precise opposite of natural. Nothing is less natural than farmed food, as it is the direct result of artificial selection.
Furthermore, some estimates suggest that the UK would have to double its arable acreage in order to sustain an organic agri-economy.
In my opinion Take the Flour Back are merely the latest incarnation of an immovable, unchanging visceral opposition. I'm not advocating name-calling, but they are Luddites in the purest sense, in that they are invoking organised vandalism in the face of progress. The Luddites of course were either hanged or deported.
As to your last point: I don't think scientists' job is to persuade anyone that their course is right. I think it is society's problem to ensure that a public discourse can take place about neutral technologies (and their duel use potential), in an informed, scientifically literate way, such that the ifs hows and whens of the application of new technology can be deployed sensibly. IMHO, the Green Party, the Soil Association, FoE, ETC and most representatives of GM opposition are not interested in that conversation taking place. They are viscerally opposed.
As a minor point: the Earth is not dying. The Earth is being rendered a place where we are going to find it hard to live on. We have induced the 6th great extinction, which will have a profound effect on the global ecosystem. But life will continue, with or without us.
@
Though Greens sometimes get their science wrong, they're better than most | Sunny Hundal | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:
Rutherford is as visceral and anti-science as those he criticizes. The 6th great extinction? There's even less data for that, than for the dangers of GM crops. Or maybe he's pro-science, but anti-data.
ReplyDeleteNote that he doesn't say GMOs and extinctions are correlated. He's just waving his hand, saying, 'Look at me, I'm not against *all* greenie-Leftist bunk.' Just like those others who say, 'Look, I believe human-produced CO2 will overwhelm the environment, which proves to you greenie-Left hand-wringing apocalypticians you should believe what I say about the safety of GM crops'.
When a man touts his personal beliefs as being credentials, you know you've got an aspiring whacko on your hands.