I like to
refer to myself as a pragmatic Green. The reason that I use the modifier is because
I like to base my world view on reliable sources, and do not feel the need to
exhibit the hysterical and knee-jerk behaviour recently exhibited by
"activists" who took part in Take the Flour Back’s recent
"decontamination picnic" demonstration against Rothamsted Research -
the oldest agricultural research facility in the world. The anger and
frustration that I feel when reading their justification of intended vandalism
is made all the more bitter by being mixed with sadness from the dawning
realisation that potentially, with allies like these, the struggle to reduce
the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change is an even more insurmountable
task than I had previously realised – which is saying something.
How, I ask, in all earnestness, can
you cite the (crushingly overwhelming weight) of scientific support for the
biggest problem ever to confront the human race, whilst simultaneously denying
the weight of research in other areas, such as nuclear fission and GM crops?
Personally, I didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other about GM
crops - there are many questions which are as yet unanswered, which is the
strongest argument for ENCOURAGING research rather than destroying it. However,
in my frustration I have ended up reading quite a bit and as I have gathered
knowledge this area, it's become less of a mysterious, occluded and vaguely
threatening enigma (with overtones of comic-book-style mutations) and
I've moved steadily in the pro-GM direction.
There are scientific and emotive
arguments on both sides, and it is important to consider these - but not
endlessly. Once concerns have been addressed, a spectator without bias should
theoretically change their view. However, when the most scientific summation of
protesters' concerns (here) is speedily and roundly rubbished (in the
comments section, especially Matthew Cooper) will this change a made-up mind?
Doubtful. My previously unmade-up mind has been made by sound (i.e. I haven't
seen them convincingly refuted) arguments for the research (or, at least
against destroying it which is really the case in point here) that litter the
web, from a rebuttal by the head of the project in The Telegraph, views in The Spectator, and those of similarly frustrated Greens, and elsewhere; for those who
have not seen them, here is a short summary:
Contamination: The statistics are quoted and explained elsewhere, but as
far as I can make out, whilst this is possible, it is so unlikely as to be
almost negligible, as wheat is around 99% self-pollinated. Nevertheless, relevant
precautions are taken, and thus around each field there is a minimum of a 33 m
barrier, including a wheat “pollen barrier” between this and any other cereal
crops or couch grass (the only known wild plant able to cross-pollinate with
wheat).
Immoral bioscience corporations: this is the only anti-GM argument which I put any weight
in, and it is an important question: Will the results of the trial be used
protectively by large corporations interested only in their own profit margins;
the answer is a simple “No”:
“Our work is publically
funded, we have pledged that our results will not be patented and will not be owned
by any private company – if our wheat proves to be beneficial we want it to be
available to farmers around the world at minimum cost.”
This is the beauty of governmental funding for
research, which has been such a strength of the UK.
Health effects:
“There's uncertainty about the health effect of this
- there's been no adequate long-term health safety testing”
So there’s a lack of research in
this area, is what you’re saying? And the answer to this is to destroy research in progress?! Health
effects of GM crops are routinely trotted out to make an argument. If you think
you are at risk from DNA within the plants, let me ask you this: Have you ever
found DNA from your food affect you in any way? Symptoms such as sprouting
feathers after eating a lot of poultry, or becoming rounder and redder in
August when the tomato plants are fruiting and you eat several kilos a day?
Maybe there are more complex questions here that are not being clearly asked –
but spouting off about health effects without being specific is just
propagating misinformation which serves nobody’s best interests.
I was brought up by a scientist and
a green, who was one of the most unselfish and caring people I've met,
believing in the better world which will come through advancement of knowledge.
Despite this idea that science is inherently "male" (fundamentally so,
rather than in the abysmal ratio of female to male scientists), I would argue
that this is absolute rubbish - "science" is a much wider concept
than is regularly appreciated, and is the only way to reliably pass on
knowledge from one person/group of people/generation to another. A scientific
mind is one that will build an opinion on the world around a firm foundation of
demonstrable facts. If some of your facts later turn out to be false, part of
your foundation begins to weaken, and you are required to rebuild it.
There are too many things in the world for one person to reliably develop
scientific opinions about; this is what research is for; checking the strength
of these foundations, and proposing ways to rebuild if necessary. If I saw any kind
of anti-GM arguments supported by a weight of research without the need for
cherry-picking or blurring with misinformation and ill-defined fears, I would
allow it to have an effect on my opinion - because of that
"pragmatic" modifier that I use above. Far from fulfilling this gap,
the group has refused to engage in honest and open debate with the scientists:
I can only assume that this is borne out of an active unwillingness to confront
the facts, and the normal people explaining those facts, that might force a
re-address of one’s worldview. To this I would say: if you are afraid, and so
you either fail to listen to the arguments of the other side, or do listen but
do not allow them any traction on your opinion, you are apt to end up with
a half-crumbled sandcastle of a view, which is not conducive to solving the much
larger, Earth-shattering problems with which we are confronted.
Please sign the petition if you
support unbiased knowledge: Sense
about Science petition,
