Greenpeace have been strongly criticised in recent weeks over the destruction of a trial crop of genetically engineered wheat. Some critics have labelled the organisation ‘anti-science’ and claim that opposition to GM crops somehow contradicts the support of climate science.
Firstly, it is useful to revisit what ‘science’ actually is, and what it isn’t.
Science is broadly defined as the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The scientific method involves observing the world, putting forward a hypothesis (theory), and then attempting to disprove that hypothesis. Theories that can’t be disproved become accepted, until they are disproved and replaced by a theory that is more robust.
So, contrary to much popular opinion, science really isn’t about ‘proof’ at all. It is about ‘disproof’.
In relation to global warming, after many years of observing trends in nature (rising CO2 levels in the ocean and atmosphere, slow but steady increases in global average temperatures etc.), scientists put forward the theory of ‘man made global warming’. Scientists have been trying to disprove this theory, but so far they haven’t succeeded – it remains the best theory to describe what is happening to the global climate system.
What climate deniers and so-called ‘climate sceptics’ seem to misunderstand amid their attempts to discredit climate science, is that the mainstream scientific process that they are railing against is actually geared around trying to ‘disprove’ the theory of man-made global warming. The reason that I call them ‘climate deniers’ rather than ‘climate sceptics’ is that all climate scientists are sceptical of the theory of global warming as a result of the scientific method they use, but what we see from the deniers is just that – outright denial.
But the scientific method does not stand alone in our decision making about science and technological development. Science is, and must be, guided by values and principles, one of which is the ‘precautionary principle’. The application of the precautionary principle helps to determine where the burden of proof or the burden of disproof should lie.
In the case of climate change, the burden of proof, or the burden of disproof is clear. There is an obvious trend happening in the world that is widely regarded as potentially dangerous. A theory has been identified to describe what is happening, this theory has withstood enormous scientific scrutiny and is therefore widely accepted by the scientific community with a high level of confidence. The negative consequences of global warming happening are enormous compared to cost of doing something about it. The burden of proof clearly rests upon climate deniers (or indeed climate scientists) to disprove the theory of human induced global warming. I hope they manage to do it because the implications of global warming are almost too disturbing to contemplate.
In the case of genetically engineered foods however, the issues are less straightforward and reveal the political and values based judgements that are also made as part of the scientific process. But firstly, it is important to be clear that genetically engineered foods are not science. Nuclear power isn’t ‘science either. Neither are pop-up toasters. They are the commercial products that rely on scientific understanding for their development.
The ‘science’ involved in genetic engineering is the theory of the genome and the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins. One of the technological spin-offs of these scientific theories (which thus far have not been disproven) is a technique of inserting genes from one species into the genome of another in order to achieve a beneficial trait in the recipient organism. The body of scientific evidence suggests that the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins are extremely complex and the implications of inserting a foreign gene are likely to be many and unpredictable.
For example, the Human Genome Project revealed that we humans have far fewer genes than previously expected – around 20,500 genes that encode the proteins for all the parts of our bodies. On the other hand, the tiny roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans) has nearly as many genes as we do—approximately 20,100—but far fewer body parts. It is estimated that some 650,000 protein interactions occur in humans, approximately three times more than that in the roundworm. Moreover, it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions.
We need to remember this complexity in the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins when it comes to how we regulate genetically engineered organisms.
The problem, and a root cause of the controversy over the regulation of GM foods, is that determining where the burden of proof should lie for safety of new products not a scientific ‘given’. It is actually a value judgement based largely on an assessment of costs and benefits. The proponents of GM (biotech companies, chemical companies and some scientists) argue in favour of the doctrine of ‘substantial equivalence’. In effect, it assumes that genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to traditionally bred varieties of the same food because only a small number of extra genes have been inserted. As a result of this assumption, GM foods are assumed to be safe until proven otherwise.
On the other hand, many public health organisations, environmental groups and some scientists argue that ‘substantial equivalence’ does not account for the complexity of possible results arising from the insertion of novel genes into organisms, and that unexpected effects are likely. Accordingly, if a precautionary approach is taken, then the burden of proof should be on the proponents of GM to demonstrate that GM foods are safe in much the same way that new pharmaceuticals need to be demonstrated to be safe.
Ultimately, this debate is not about science, it is about politics. It is about evaluating who benefits from GM crops, and who should bear the risks. Greenpeace’s position is influenced by the simple observation that most of the GM crops that have been developed have been done so for the private benefit of agro-chemical companies that wish to extend their control over the food chain.
From our discussions with public health experts around the world, a common view emerges: If the potential risks of negative health impacts from GM foods became manifest, then the impacts could be significant, would be spread widely within the community and would be difficult to detect (in part due to poor labelling requirements).
The high profile public debate about genetically engineered foods has been mischaracterised as a pro vs. anti science debate, but it is really a debate about the politics of technology, and about the risks and benefits of one particular technology. A similar parallel in the climate change debate would not be about whether or not climate change is happening, it would be about whether nuclear power is an appropriate solution to climate change, or whether a particular geo-engineering application should be deployed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Whenever you have a cost/benefit equation, you need to deal with value judgements and vested interests. In cases where the people taking a risk are the people benefitting, you are likely to see widespread acceptance. A good example of this is the mobile phones which offer clear benefits to people even though there are concerns over a possible increased incidence of brain cancer. With GM foods, the companies benefit, consumers bear the health risks, and the risks of GM crops are ‘externalised’ upon the wider environment.
Greenpeace is not opposed to the science of genetics. We are not opposed to research into new and innovative forms of plant breeding. What Greenpeace are opposed to is the widespread release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and the food chain without due diligence being done on the risk of long-term negative impacts. Our position is based on the precautionary principle, on respect for science, and on critical analysis of the environmental and social risks of new technologies.
66 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
“If you do somehow get permission to test a GM product independently, to get your sample, you have to sign an agreement to show results of such testing to the biotech company – mainly Monsanto – before releasing the results. So if a detrimental result is recorded, it suddenly becomes commercial in confidence. ”
The plots destroyed were CSIRO developed .
Yes Don, and who is paying for the tests?
CSIRO
And where are they getting the money from? Read up the link a little
I know that Chemical and general Industral Co’s are strange sometimes in their decision making BUT I dont think they fund research for someone elses development. The Gene Regulator in the Fedral Dpt of Health can tell you who applyed for each GM trial. Are you realy saying that CSIRO are not inderpendent ?? You can buy their R&D ? They will aid in deception ?
CSIRO are in the GM development business on behalf of all Australians, they are looking for drought and salt resistance in plants to enhanse production volumes, there is no chemical co. benifit. So no funding.
‘Greenpeace is not opposed to the science of genetics. We are not opposed to research into new and innovative forms of plant breeding. What Greenpeace are opposed to is the widespread release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and the food chain without due diligence being done on the risk of long-term negative impacts. Our position is based on the precautionary principle, on respect for science, and on critical analysis of the environmental and social risks of new technologies. ”
Who do you think should undertake this testing ?? if not the inderpendent CSIRO to protect Australians ???? If the Chemical Co does it you would then say it is tainted, and unsound.
Don Matthews, I don’t know who you are, but you are either naive or somehow involved in this business. I would be delighted if CSIRO was independent, but sadly they are not. Ask Dr Maarten Stapper (ex-CSIRO). Have a look at the ‘revolving door’ in America between the FDA and Monsanto executives. Read The World According to Monsanto. This delightful company, who gave us agent orange, PCBs, , 2,4-D and 2,4,5T and sold and promoted DDT has moved in on Australia. It now owns 20 per cent of the Western Australian cereal breeding company Intergrain. Two directors of Nufarm, the distributors of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup were on the board of CSIRO when the GM wheat trials were approved. Monsanto has been ‘working with’ CSIRO since 1990. CSIRO independent? Afraid not Don.
Flower, I looked quickly at your proffered links. Correct me if I’m wrong (as if I needed to ask), but the only mention I found of whales was in aahr.org.au/statistics/. But this is so far from being a ‘gotcha’ it’s not funny. Also apparent in those statistics is that a clear majority of the ‘>6 million critters’ experienced no more than ‘Observational studies involving minor interference’ (I’m guessing stuff like tagging) or ‘Minor conscious intervention’. Hardly “tormented and tortured”, and certainly no evidence whatsoever of any whale being held in captivity. I stand by every word I’ve written. Including ‘non sequitur’, as evidenced by how far this now is from the original topic, and all sparked by a light-hearted reference to a fictional movie, for crying out loud.
Too much garbage appering in this post for me. Opinion is one thing but outright lies should not be part of any discussion.
Don – that’s what you get from the biotechs. everything I have posted is verifiable. Example. I was driving, listening to an interview with a biotech rep, and he began to tell the ABC announcer that there had never been a case of gm contamination of a non-gm crop. I pulled over, rang the station, was put on air and confronted him with a few case histories. He back-pedalled. Just one example. Don, if you are genuinely independent, I urge you to do some reading – starting with The World According to Monsanto
Mark Duffett – More guess work on your part, more obfuscation. Everybody knows you delight in slapping Mother Nature and her non-human subjects in the face but must you continue making a goose of yourself?:
Relevant excerpts from links supplied:
1) (WA’s) Local Government Minister John Castrilli said in answers to questions in Parliament that his department had data from individual scientists up to last year but it would no longer collate total State figures because that would be “resource-intensive.”
“The department released 2007 data last year, which showed that 400 whales, dolphins and porpoises had been used in experiments.”
2) VIC Includes cephalopods, crustaceans, seals, sea lions, whales and dolphins
NSW (Other Aquatic Animals): Unspecified
NSW (Other): Exotic zoo animals
ACT figures are from ANU and CSIRO only.
n/a – Yet to be received (Queensland, NT, WA)
3) SA did not provide a break-down of severity of procedure.
ACT did not provide a break-down of severity of procedure
WA: Unspecified.
NSW – production of 41,314 genetically modified animals
Mark Duffett – It is better to stay silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
CSIRO consorting with known criminals. Bayer CropScience (not yet arrested for crimes against humanity) boasts of collaboration:
‘Monheim, July 21, 2009 – “Bayer CropScience is expanding its global research and development activities in seeds and traits to include a focus on cereals. In support of this expansion, the company recently formalised a long-term alliance with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national research organization, which is one of the world’s leading institutions in the development of new wheat varieties.”
Grim reaper Bayer reviled around the world finds refuge at Australia’s CSIRO and incompetent pesticide regulator, APVMA, while carnage continues:
1) Allegations of Bayer’s brutal treatment of animals for experiment include:
a) Sick and injured animals being regularly denied veterinary medical care;
b) An inadequately anesthetized dog struggling while an untrained employee extracts a tooth with pliers;
c) Cats being thrown into cages;
d) Cats and dogs being sprayed down with high-pressure cleaners containing bleach, soap and water;
e) Employees abusing the animals with obscenities while grabbing, throwing and kicking them;
f) An employee repeatedly attempting to rip out a cat’s claw by pushing the cat against a wire cage so that the cat grabs the wire with its claws and then tearing the cat away from the wire;
g) The rooms in which the animals were kept were dirty and deafeningly loud.
2) “Bayer CropScience has agreed to pay $750 million (517 million euros) to settle complaints submitted by US farmers. Around 11,000 farmers in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas filed lawsuits against the German company, claiming that their crops of long-grain rice had been tainted by genetically modified rice.”
3) US: Bayer CropScience has agreed to pay nearly $460,000 to resolve a variety of chemical storage and air pollution violations cited by state inspectors at its Institute plant over the last three years.
4) UK: InPharm, 5 Nov. 2010 – Bayer has been accused of a “shocking error of judgement” after promotional material for its erectile dysfunction brand Levitra (vardenafil) breached the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Code of Practice.
5) FDA Warns Bayer Over Claims on 2 Aspirin Products: Bayer is illegally marketing two aspirin products that make unsubstantiated health claims about fighting heart disease and osteoporosis, federal regulators said Tuesday.
6) June 2011: The US Supreme Court allowed a class-action suit by alleged victims of the anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. Cerivastatin was blamed for the deaths of 31 Americans four years later due to side effects, including fatal muscle toxicity leading to kidney failure.
7, 8, 9, 10…………….ongoing! Where will it all end? Australia?
http:// www.
cbgnetwork.org/3993.html
“NSW – production of 41,314 genetically modified animals ”
Now we’r talking———-Can anyone confirm speces ???
Why not in other States ???
I wonder what has to happen for an animal to called GM. If it was AI,which certinly is Gene Transfer then there would be a hell of lot more than this. And just think of the apoplexy in Greenpeace.
@ Don Matthews: “And just think of the apoplexy in Greenpeace.”
@ Mark Duffett: “Only scale separates the Greenpeace whippersnippers from the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. Both acts of knowledge destruction, both acts of barbarism.”
Apoplexy in Greenpeace? Whippersnippers? One of Mark Duffer’s delusional WMD?
Aw give it a break. Only scale separates the Taliban from despotic France who blew up the Rainbow Warrior ship and murdered a photographer with impunity.
Oh ye hypocrites!
theconversation.edu.au/top-five-myths-about-genetic-modification-2664
As an employee of CSIRO Mark, you are already compromised by that organisation’s acceptance of funding from biotech multinationals.
And I think you’ll find much dispute from scientists and others concerning your ‘five myths about GM’
But without getting into an endless ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ exchange , let me just quote Ignacio Chapela, the Mexican biologist and one of the authors of a paper on the genetic contamination of the traditional Mexican corn crop who subsequently lost his position at Berkley University (as have many Monsanto critics).
“There was a time” Chapela said “when science and the university loudly proclaimed their independence from governmental, military and industrial institutions. That’s over, not only because scientists depend on industry to survive, but because they themselves are part of industry.”
Thoes getting email notices may like to follow up the descussion on GM ANIMALS by reading : Swarm Troopers: Mutant armies waging war in the wild ” in the 10 Sept 2011 New Scientist.All about “Autocidal maniacs “
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All