Why do you say that anti-GMO sentiment is anti-science?
I think it is a serious mistake to conflate genuine concerns about the deployment of a technology with luddite, close-minded thinking. Remember, the use of a technology is by definition the application of science, not science (i.e., the pursuit of knowledge) itself. Many persons who are skeptical of GMO technology are very literate in the underlying science. I have a PhD in Microbiology from one of the United States' top research universities. I know, for example, that transgenic technology is not nearly as advanced as we are led to believe. The "gene guns" that are used to transform plant cells can insert the transgenes anywhere in the genome. This can interrupt existing protein-coding genes or lead to dysfunction in gene expression. It's likely that these changes could substantively affect the plant and the food it produces--perhaps producing new allergens--and it's also likely that these changes could go undetected in product testing (which isn't even required by the FDA due to the principle of substantial equivalence). There are, of course, many more legitimate concerns about GMOs, such as increased herbicide/pesticide/fertilizer use, damage to the soil due to these chemicals, loss of biodiversity, life as intellectual property, and so on. As a scientist, many of my colleagues are also concerned about these same issues.
tl;dr Concerns about GMOs are not based in ignorance about the science.
lukethompson20 karma
Why do you say that anti-GMO sentiment is anti-science?
I think it is a serious mistake to conflate genuine concerns about the deployment of a technology with luddite, close-minded thinking. Remember, the use of a technology is by definition the application of science, not science (i.e., the pursuit of knowledge) itself. Many persons who are skeptical of GMO technology are very literate in the underlying science. I have a PhD in Microbiology from one of the United States' top research universities. I know, for example, that transgenic technology is not nearly as advanced as we are led to believe. The "gene guns" that are used to transform plant cells can insert the transgenes anywhere in the genome. This can interrupt existing protein-coding genes or lead to dysfunction in gene expression. It's likely that these changes could substantively affect the plant and the food it produces--perhaps producing new allergens--and it's also likely that these changes could go undetected in product testing (which isn't even required by the FDA due to the principle of substantial equivalence). There are, of course, many more legitimate concerns about GMOs, such as increased herbicide/pesticide/fertilizer use, damage to the soil due to these chemicals, loss of biodiversity, life as intellectual property, and so on. As a scientist, many of my colleagues are also concerned about these same issues.
tl;dr Concerns about GMOs are not based in ignorance about the science.
View HistoryShare Link