Scientists' Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops (original) (raw)
Related papers
2018
In just over two decades, genetically modified (GM) crops have increased their global spread at an incredible rate. In the same period, research studies and reviews on their effects and performance have gradually become more frequent. Still today, however, there is a substantial lack of established evidence on GM crops mainly due to deontological, epistemological and methodological distortions that characterize much of the scientific production in this area of life sciences. As a consequence, the real impact of GM crops remains largely unclear and problematic. This situation challenges all promotional campaigns carried out by agribusiness companies. We address some issues related to GM crops and their impact, trying to highlight some obstacles that still prevent us from clarifying what we know, what we do not know and what we will never know by using unreliable scrutiny criteria. GM crops are still a source of heated debate within the scientific community and in public opinion. In m...
GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2020
The underlying constructs characterising the never-ending debate and lack of consensus on food are largely issues relating to potential risks and uncertainty GMOs might pose to human health and the environment, and the possible threats to national food sovereignty. This paper is a review study and as such relied solely on published literature on contentious issues surrounding GM crops and its food derivatives. Most of the issues raised in available literature against GMOs on the grounds of health and environmental risks, and national food sovereignty concerns are overhyped, speculative and fear-mongering. Public interest and safety will be better assured and safeguarded if GMOs proponents and opponents reached consensus on standardization regarding tolerable level of harm and acceptable safety limit in interpreting impact assessment results of GMOs on health and environment.
The necessary "GMO" denialism and scientific consensus
Journal of Science Communication
Genetically Modified Organisms" are not a consistent category: it is impossible to discuss such a miscellaneous bunch of products, deriving from various biotech methods, as if they had a common denominator. Critics are too often pre-emptively suspicious of peculiar risks for health or the environment linked to this ill-assorted ensemble of microorganisms, plants or animals: yet, even before being unscientific, the expression "GMO(s)" has very poor semantic value. Similarly, claims that recombinant DNA technology is always safe are a misjudgement: many unsatisfactory "GMOs" have been discarded, as has happened also for innumerable agri-food outcomes, obtained via more or less traditional field and lab methods. The scientific consensus, i.e. the widespread accord among geneticists, biologists and agriculturalists, maintains that every biotech invention has to be examined case by case, evaluating the unique profile of each new organism ("GMO" or otherwise): to assess its safety, the technique(s) used to produce it are irrelevant. Therefore, in considering "green" biotechnologies, a triple mantra should be kept in mind: 1. product, not process; 2. singular, not plural; 3. a posteriori, not a priori. Both people's and law-makers' attitude to agricultural biotechnologies should be reoriented, and this is an interesting task for science communicators: they should explain how meaningless and misleading the "GMO" frame is, debunking a historical, ongoing socio-political blunder, clarifying to the public what most life scientists have been recommending for several decades.
University students’ views about genetically modified organisms: A case study
2020
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is a popular socio-scientific issue today and views on this issue directly shape people’s behaviors. This study aims to investigate university students’ views about GMOs. A total of 200 university students from different faculties of a state university participated in the study. Face-to-face interviews were made with the participants. The sampling technique of convenience sampling, a purposeful sampling technique, and the maximum variation sampling technique were systematically used together to determine the participants of the study. Data were collected using an interview form developed by the researchers. The study was designed as a holistic single-case study. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and content analysis. NVivo12 software, a qualitative analysis software, was used to organize the data and the analysis results were presented in frequencies and percentages. Excerpts from the themes were also included. The results revealed...
Politics and the life sciences : the journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, 2018
In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report's effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report's release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report's conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that ...
2009
The modern world is becoming increasingly complex not only because of rapid progress in science and technology but also due to the emergence and spread of multiple values. As a consequence, demands for economic and physical security are gradually giving way to demands based on other values such as freedom, self-expression and quality of life. This shift – a turn from ‘materialist’ to ‘postmaterialist’ values (Inglehart, 1997) – has had a tremendous influence across all spheres of our lives. Scientific endeavors related to agriculture are no exception. This turn to postmaterialist values explains the shifting research agenda in agriculture. For instance, when we look at the dominant research agenda in modern biotechnology relating to agriculture and food, the area that I am most familiar with, the emphasis is now shifting from research on, and development of,varieties with improved productivity to those with improved nutrition. This shows the research agenda is moving away from a foc...