Comments on: More on GM Foods and WTO http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3729 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dano http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3729&cpage=1#comment-3013 Dano Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:46:10 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3729#comment-3013 What John Fleck said. The impression, Brad, that you have that anti-GMO folks are anti-science is, I suspect, grounded in anti-green rhetoric. Best, D What John Fleck said.

The impression, Brad, that you have that anti-GMO folks are anti-science is, I suspect, grounded in anti-green rhetoric.

Best,

D

]]> By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3729&cpage=1#comment-3012 Roger Pielke Jr. Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:40:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3729#comment-3012 Brad- My sense is that such inconsistency is the norm rather than the exception. We see this in people who are opposed to stem cell research, nuclear power, for modifying the climate via energy policy but not geoengineering, etc. etc. Brad-

My sense is that such inconsistency is the norm rather than the exception. We see this in people who are opposed to stem cell research, nuclear power, for modifying the climate via energy policy but not geoengineering, etc. etc.

]]> By: John Fleck http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3729&cpage=1#comment-3011 John Fleck Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:26:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3729#comment-3011 Brad - I think there's less of a disconnect than you think between opposition to GM foods and an underlying support of science. As Dickson points out, GM opponents (at least those in the West) do attempt to scientifically ground their position: to immune system and allergenic responses, for example. What that implies is that, in the political debate, they believe they can win the argument by marshalling rather than rejecting science. In other words, they argue (and sincerely believe, I would add) that science is on their side. You can see the same style of argumentation in nuclear waste policy and climate debates, with both the generally "left" position and the generally "right" position willing to abandon broad consensus and selectively choose science to make their argument. Dickson is right that they're being inconsistent - backing the consensus on climate change while cherry-picking outlier science to support their opposition to GM crops, for example. I think this is strong evidence that in all these debates, it's ultimately value systems rather than "sound science" that's really driving the debate. But all the participants think they're supportive of science. Brad -

I think there’s less of a disconnect than you think between opposition to GM foods and an underlying support of science. As Dickson points out, GM opponents (at least those in the West) do attempt to scientifically ground their position: to immune system and allergenic responses, for example. What that implies is that, in the political debate, they believe they can win the argument by marshalling rather than rejecting science. In other words, they argue (and sincerely believe, I would add) that science is on their side. You can see the same style of argumentation in nuclear waste policy and climate debates, with both the generally “left” position and the generally “right” position willing to abandon broad consensus and selectively choose science to make their argument. Dickson is right that they’re being inconsistent – backing the consensus on climate change while cherry-picking outlier science to support their opposition to GM crops, for example. I think this is strong evidence that in all these debates, it’s ultimately value systems rather than “sound science” that’s really driving the debate. But all the participants think they’re supportive of science.

]]> By: Brad Hoge http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3729&cpage=1#comment-3010 Brad Hoge Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:34:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3729#comment-3010 David Dickson hits the nail on the head with his assessment: "Put these factors together, and the result is that, for all its promises, modern science often generates a sense of alienation, rooted in feelings of a loss of control. In principle, we can all subscribe to the idea that, as the philosopher Francis Bacon said, "knowledge is power". In practice, scientific knowledge is frequently seen as reinforcing the power of those who already have it — and, as a consequence, further disenfranchising those who do not." What I'm curious about is the disconnect between opponents of GM foods who are otherwise generally supportive of science. There must be something else at work, specific to the GM foods issue, that sparks this alienation in this group and allows them to apply different logic to different issues (GM foods vs. climate change, for instance). I'm curious what others might think about this. David Dickson hits the nail on the head with his assessment: “Put these factors together, and the result is that, for all its promises, modern science often generates a sense of alienation, rooted in feelings of a loss of control. In principle, we can all subscribe to the idea that, as the philosopher Francis Bacon said, “knowledge is power”. In practice, scientific knowledge is frequently seen as reinforcing the power of those who already have it — and, as a consequence, further disenfranchising those who do not.”

What I’m curious about is the disconnect between opponents of GM foods who are otherwise generally supportive of science. There must be something else at work, specific to the GM foods issue, that sparks this alienation in this group and allows them to apply different logic to different issues (GM foods vs. climate change, for instance). I’m curious what others might think about this.

]]>