Who has more credibility to the NPR audience, a scientist or someone who runs an organic yogurt company? It depends on the issue, of course. When it comes to global warming, science is awesome but when it comes to food security for poor people, science is evil corporations out to kill us all. So they accept the facts of the yogurt maker.
Henry Miller of Forbes - physician and molecular biologist, founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993 and, more recently, scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution - is calling them out. He discusses a common technique against science, especially by the kooky environmental fringe, invoking false moral equivalence by creating "pseudo-balance", like having world-renowned biologist (and Science 2.0 contributor) Lee Silver squared off against anti-science activist Margaret Mellon. They're both equal, right? Maybe to NPR.
Scientists of all stripes (and in broad culture liberals and conservatives) care about poor people and that means caring about food security. The more food, the cheaper it is and the cheaper it is, the more money poor people have to spend on other things. It is historical fact that when people have wealth beyond basic needs, culture and education improves. Progressives seem to want to make food more expensive, keep people out of nature and they'd tax the Moon if they could. If we can engineer crops that use less water they can grow in areas where a lot of poor people live, we should do it and improve their lives. Sure, that means poor Africans won't buy organic spinach from Europe but it's better for poor Africans to grow their own food locally and even sell it.
We've talked about the Aquadvantage salmon before. It could practically be a poster-child for anti-science denialism, on a par with global warming yet with a lot less science media coverage - the reason for that is the Big White Elephant In The Science Media Room. NPR covered that too, Miller opines, with "Science Friday" pitting scientist Alison Van Eenennaam versus the darling of radical environmental NGOs, Anne Kapuscinski.
Predictably, the denialist did some fearmongering, invoking a "worrisome 'precedent' for future animals" - that's slippery slope reasoning to you and me. Social conservatives do it too, like when they contend that support for gay men being able to cheer their kids on at a soccer game is worrisome. If you buy that business about a 'worrisome precedent' over a fish that happens to grow faster and is the most thoroughly studied and tested genetic modification in history, you have good logical company on the right.
I'd like to defend "Science Friday" a little, though "Talk of the Nation" and other anti-science fluff on NPR can take their lumps. "Science Friday" wants to appeal to a large cross-section of listeners, and that includes anti-science cranks, so cherry-picking one example out of 50 is just that, cherry-picking - their anti-NGO 'scientist' was actually a professor in 'sustainability' though, which is basically humanities with an even fuzzier title. Hopefully Ira can get a little more informed opposition the next time out. Otherwise, it will inspire food critics to grant us their in-depth science analysis of GMOs in The Atlantic again.
Link: NPR's Bias Against Genetic Engineering by Henry Miller, Forbes
Henry Miller of Forbes - physician and molecular biologist, founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993 and, more recently, scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution - is calling them out. He discusses a common technique against science, especially by the kooky environmental fringe, invoking false moral equivalence by creating "pseudo-balance", like having world-renowned biologist (and Science 2.0 contributor) Lee Silver squared off against anti-science activist Margaret Mellon. They're both equal, right? Maybe to NPR.
Scientists of all stripes (and in broad culture liberals and conservatives) care about poor people and that means caring about food security. The more food, the cheaper it is and the cheaper it is, the more money poor people have to spend on other things. It is historical fact that when people have wealth beyond basic needs, culture and education improves. Progressives seem to want to make food more expensive, keep people out of nature and they'd tax the Moon if they could. If we can engineer crops that use less water they can grow in areas where a lot of poor people live, we should do it and improve their lives. Sure, that means poor Africans won't buy organic spinach from Europe but it's better for poor Africans to grow their own food locally and even sell it.
We've talked about the Aquadvantage salmon before. It could practically be a poster-child for anti-science denialism, on a par with global warming yet with a lot less science media coverage - the reason for that is the Big White Elephant In The Science Media Room. NPR covered that too, Miller opines, with "Science Friday" pitting scientist Alison Van Eenennaam versus the darling of radical environmental NGOs, Anne Kapuscinski.
Predictably, the denialist did some fearmongering, invoking a "worrisome 'precedent' for future animals" - that's slippery slope reasoning to you and me. Social conservatives do it too, like when they contend that support for gay men being able to cheer their kids on at a soccer game is worrisome. If you buy that business about a 'worrisome precedent' over a fish that happens to grow faster and is the most thoroughly studied and tested genetic modification in history, you have good logical company on the right.
I'd like to defend "Science Friday" a little, though "Talk of the Nation" and other anti-science fluff on NPR can take their lumps. "Science Friday" wants to appeal to a large cross-section of listeners, and that includes anti-science cranks, so cherry-picking one example out of 50 is just that, cherry-picking - their anti-NGO 'scientist' was actually a professor in 'sustainability' though, which is basically humanities with an even fuzzier title. Hopefully Ira can get a little more informed opposition the next time out. Otherwise, it will inspire food critics to grant us their in-depth science analysis of GMOs in The Atlantic again.
Link: NPR's Bias Against Genetic Engineering by Henry Miller, Forbes
One of the most important and real issues is the ability for corporations to patent and/or license living creatures. The extent to which this occurs and what the legal issues are is not at all clear, but I am unilaterally opposed to such legalistic controls in any aspect of our food supply.
There is ample reason to distrust corporations, for the same reason that we recognize the obvious legal flaw in having had them declared as "individuals with rights", we're beginning to see that profitability does not equate to altruistic motives. As a result, I would really hope all the marketing hype about helping the poor and helping mankind stop. For the same reason that arguments that portray engineered foods as not healthy are wrong, let's also not go too far the other way and talk about how corporations are interested in saving the planet.
Unless such engineered foods are completely isolated (which isn't possible), they will compete with other species for resources. I am NOT prepared to allow patented animals to potentially drive other species to extinction so that corporate domination of a food market becomes a possible outcome. Even though some people are concerned over novel genetic manipulations, I don't see those as being any more relevant than raising concerns that wheat can be transformed into donuts.
It is disconcerting to hear the argument about helping the poor, since we already have plenty of current precedent to see that such an outcome rarely occurs. As an example, we see that people in need of pharmaceuticals are not given any economic break because of a medical need. In many cases, the uninsured are simply unable to afford such medications, because the companies have determined that it is more important for them to recover their research costs and lobbied the government to ensure that cheaper drugs are not legal to purchase from foreign sources [all under the guise of "protecting" us]. ... {Hmmm .. I wonder why such legislation never spawns "nanny state" comments?}
While I won't argue the merits of that position, it isn't an discussion I ever want to have regarding our food supply.
Let's be honest about it. The only reason anyone is looking to produce GMO foods in the private sector, is because it stands to be a tremendously profitable enterprise. It doesn't matter what the scientist's motivation is, nor what any government or social group wants to do. It simply has the potential to be hugely profitable. So, you can be assured that if cheap food is eventually made available to the poor, such research costs will be recovered in some manner by ensuring the rest of us pay more for it. Feeding the poor has never been a sound economic objective, so when someone claims that as a basis for such work .... sorry, but they're selling something.