How Not to Debate the GM Issue
First, have Prince Charles give an impassioned speech that, at least in the reports I have read, consists of a string of unsupported assertions.
Second, follow up with scores of comments like these on Charles and GM in the Telegraph (for non Brits, that’s the major conservative paper) which (leaving aside those that venture further into the matter than I agree or I disagree) also (with a few honorable exceptions) consist more of assertions than of evidence and argument sprinkled with a hefty dose of ad hominem remarks.
What a depressing spectacle.
For other takes, here’s the Guardian’s brief report on Charles and GM. Here’s the Times.
For the record, I have never found Prince Charles’ comments on farming and the environment to be particularly insightful. And I believe that GM crops appropriately used are the way to go.
As a child of the Enlightenment, though, and thus convinced that reason, argument, evidence and civil debate are crucial in public life, I find it hard to see how sense will prevail with GM with passions running as high as they do in the comments in the Telegraph. Or, perhaps more optimistically, these comments are not the tip of some huge iceberg but represent a distant outlier to general opinion.
The spectacle is even worse when it comes to terminator seeds. Arguments against are heavily sprinkled with anthropomorphic language, as if “sterile” apple seeds are analogous to sterile human babies.
Unfortunately, commentary like this (the news reports) simply ends up driving a polarized response. The real world isn’t so black and white. I’m not pro- many aspects of GM (health issues I’m not concerned with, creating monopolies I’m not so keen on), but I’m not entirely against it either.
In some ways the GM debate is a red herring, people discuss it in Australia, but on the other hand there is little discussion on the impact of cotton and rice growing in this drought prone part of the world, which is more relevant.
I spend a lot of time talking to people about agriculture, farms and homestead gardens. This includes general audiences, educators (elementary to university level), scientists, corporate types, and so on.
In my experience Prince Charles’ views are not the tip of a huge iceberg. Perhaps a small one. It makes for some good noise to report on. I don’t want to dismiss it as just noise. His comments are allover the map and show a poor understanding of cause and effect. Identify an “evil” and blame all sorts of consequences on it.
One thing that stands out in particular is his suspicion of multi-national corporations. I find this to be a strong, recurring theme in wholesale arguments against GM. It’s really more about who controls the technology than the technology itself.
Protesting and undermining government support of R&D is extremely counter-productive, even for the anti-GM camp. Currently a lot of the research is in the hands of private enterprise and corporations who then control the patents. [Save problematics of this for another discussion]
Biotechnology and agriculture will be one of the topics discussed at a North African science and technology conference that I will be attending and presenting a paper at.
Biotechnology, conventional plant breeding techniques, soil conditioners, water stocking methods, and so on are all on the agenda for agricultural growth in Africa.
The scale at which these are phased in (small farms or big farms or both) will vary depending on regional infrastructure.
In part people are suspicious of multi-nationals and scientific research because this is the vibe of the age, but also in a large part because these seen as major points of weakness for the pro- cause.
Ji-Young, why don’t you tell us more about what you will be saying at the conference. And what the conference is. Adam, it is the vibe of the age but don’t you as a scientist find it worrying?
It’s a bit premature to give specifics. For now I’ll say that it’s for a diaspora network of scientists and experts.
I work in public relations, not just as press agent. My work includes forming key partnerships, research and development alliances, writing supplemental materials (the glue that brings various elements and infrastructures together for a larger project), writing educational materials, etc…
The topic is a green revolution in a North African country. Part of my job involves keeping up with global economic politics as they relate to African continental and regional development, agricultural sciences and best practices applied to specific contexts (it’s more than soil and water, local infrastructures have to be considered), etc..
Considering my geographic and socio-economic base, I do occasionally talk to people who have similar views as Prince Charles and Slow Foodies. I’m not sure how relevant they are to the larger picture. I find that people who hold these views are the least likely to be actually engaged in working.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a6941e6-699f-11dd-91bd-0000779fd18c.html
Prince branded ‘a Luddite’ over his attack on GM crops
“Phil Willis, chairman of the Commons science committee, said the use of science in farming had helped feed billions of people. “His lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.”
Levelling the “Luddite” charge, Des Turner, a Labour MP and member of the same committee, added: “Prince Charles has got a way of getting things absolutely wrong.”
I think that I would be more concerned if people were not critical. Unfortunately though there is a difference between being critical and skeptical and this distinction is often not made.
To be completely honest I don’t expect people in general to have any detailed knowledge of the scientific process. Even in “Science” it is common enough to see Ph.D. students that don’t have a clear I clear idea of this. The difference between testing a hypothesis and “proving” something for instance.
On the other hand, intelligent people shouldn’t require any specific training to think critically.
One question that I would like answered is “Is there a global food shortage and if there is a food shortage and if so what the the major contributing factors?”
In aggregate terms there is enough food to feed the world. The current challenge is ensuring access to it. Distribution problems are economic (poverty and hunger go hand in hand, no money to buy food even when it’s available), political (regime instability, cronyism/corruption, violent conflicts, trade policies, etc..) and infrastructural (lack of roads, local experts to sustain more complex agricultural sysems, etc..)
Another issue is expected population growth, can we continue to, at least in quantitative terms, grow enough food to feed rapidly growing populations? And how can it be done with a smaller carbon foot print?
And finally climate change and agricultural development are on the agenda together. Almost all new poverty/hunger alleviation aid and agricultural development programs that I’ve seen in Africa addresses the need to mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest of the poor. This is where scientists are working on improved seed varieties, soil conditioners, water stocking methods and solar energy.
All very simplified here, I know.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-3-E.pdf
worth reading
Wow, I can’t keep up with all your comments, Ji-Young and Adam. I’ve seen Prince Charles getting a lot of flack for his comments. Trouble is, royalty is still afforded a lot of credibility by many of the British. And many others too. So many Slow Food people, who are concerned about these kinds of issues, were just thrilled when he was invited to be one of the lead speakers at the last really big event they had in Italy.
Funny how the food crisis seems to have disappeared from the journalists’ dictionary in the past month or so. I’ll be posting on this again soon.