By Roberta Millstein
I'm sure we've all had the experience of committing to the final version of an article, only to think of that one more thing you should have said. Yeah, that just happened to me. Just the nature of the beast, I guess.
My recent instance has to do with an article concerning GMOs I wrote for The Common Reader, an article aimed at a general educated audience. In the article, one of the claims I defend is that a critique of GMOs is not anti-science, and I note in particular that a critique of GMOs is not the same as a critique of evolution or climate change. (Comments welcome on the article, by the way).
I was OK with my argument, although I knew that with more space I would have elaborated more than I did. But then I read this from Mark Lynas:
There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.
and I suddenly knew what I had missed, although it had been staring me in the face all along. Here's the thing: when we say that there is a consensus about climate change, much of that consensus comes from climate scientists, who study climate models as well as changes in climate and related parameters through time. In other words, the people who are in a position to know. But when we say that there is a consensus about the safety of GMOs, that consensus largely comes from geneticists and people who are doing the genetic modifications, not from people who are studying the health and environmental effects of GMOs. In fact, very few people are studying the health and environmental effects of GMOs. So, for GMOs, unlike climate change, the consensus is largely not from people who are in a position to know.
So yes, Lynas, you can consistently critique the expert consensus on GMOs and defend the expert consensus on climate change. The expertise behind the two consensuses is not equally relevant.
And that is what I should have said.
Edit: You might also be interested in an article in the same issue that takes the opposing view: GMOs, Yes!
Recent Comments