Olivia Judson has a lovely piece today on why it is important for evolution to be taught in beginning biology classes. One important point that she makes is this:
“A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry.”
She goes on to say:
“In his book, ‘The Republican War on Science,’ the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude”.
I would argue (as does she) that we see this substitute for ideology over science on the left end of the political spectrum as well. In the case of genetically engineered crops, for example, there is a pervasive ideology that GE crops are harmful to human health and to the environment, even though there has not been a single case of harm in over 10 years of cultivation.
It’s not even that there’s negative evidence for harm: there’s positive evidence that GM crops are beneficial in terms of diversity (I believe – don’t remember where I saw that, just this week).
It can all get very depressing (and see my post about Prince Charles). What do we do?
By the way, her name is Judson, not Knudson.
In fairness, it should be pointed out that we have only explored a limited range of what GM crops could do.
I agree that a blanket “GM is evil” is unwarranted (except perhaps outside the car industry), but I worry that a blanket “GM is good” message looks like ideology too. Inevitably the reality is more complex: we could bugger up the environment if we get things wrong, but a certain amount of caution and common sense should stop that.
Even Prince Charles, interviewed on the Daily
TorygraphTelegraph, makes his accusation to GM food.Otherwise, I am with O. Judson.
Isn’t any ‘commercial’ industry inherently evil? In the sense that they main concern is to make a profit, and, moreover, to maximize this profit.
Maximizing profit only sometimes equals improvement for society as a whole. And often this is only a temporary phenomenon.
I’m not really too worried about the technical aspects of GM food. I just know that in the end some people will pay a hefty price for a golf enthusiast (and I am not referring to the car industry)
I was unaware that the prince was spouting such “utter tripe” (again) until my organic farmer husband came home and told me that the prince was spouting utter tripe.
It seems that the prince has not yet read our book, which a friend of a friend of the prince sent to him last month.
In light of the Prince’s concern for the planet, I expect he is gathering all possible information from experts, right? So I have laid out my finery (silk dress and high heels and jewels) and asked my husband to buy a clean t-shirt. We are prepared.
But as of today the palace invitation and the first class airline tix have not yet arrived.
Richard,
I loved your post, which I just viewed.
“With a nod to Pamela, I want to know how the hell it is that a certain Charlie is able to spout utter tripe in the press about genetically-modified crops, and not immediately precipitate rioting in the streets, general strikes and a march on the Palace by thousands of angry scientists. Someone who has absolutely no idea of how the real world works thinks that genetic modification is a Bad Thing, and through the accident of birth has an entire nation’s attention over it.”
Well this is how the world works, right? Who paid attention to global warming until Al Gore spoke up.
As Harold McGee pointed out, the deafening science from the scientific community does not help.
yes, GE crops have also aided biodiversity. Bt has had some real benefits in reducing chemical insecticide use and in enhancing insect biodiversity. The recent analysis by Cattaneo et al clearly shows that there is similar biodiversity (ants and beetles) in GE cotton fields vs non-GE cotton fields. In contrast, broad-spectrum insecticides (which are used on the vast majority of non-GE cotton fields throughout the world) significantly reduces ant and beetle species richness.
Jennifer, thanks for the correction on the name.
Henry Gee, sorry about the name switch (I know a Hal McGee here in the US- quite a good cook, he is).
Saw you got reviewed.
A bit of a polemic, really; but good points about the problem with ‘balance’.
Thanks Richard. I did see that and will blog about it today hopefully (how do you have time to stay so current?!- you must not sleep).
I agree it was a but of a soapbox polemic but it seems like he generally liked the book, which is good.