At The Conversation: There is a classic position in the science communication literature which goes, roughly, if you meet resistance to science, throw facts at those who resist. If that doesn’t work, throw more facts at them, and throw them harder. This approach, though roundly debunked, is unfortunately still a common default. The author did not…Continue Reading…
Mark Lynas detonated a stink bomb on Twitter today: Imagine an ‘anti-science hall of shame’ w. climate deniers & anti-GM activists side by side. e.g. Seralini vs Pat Michaels? Nominations? — Mark Lynas (@mark_lynas) September 5, 2013 While I have on occasion used the anti-science tag for eye-catching purposes (see here and here)–and have been…Continue Reading…
One of the maddening aspects of the GMO discourse is the conflation of industry concerns with science. The biggest example, of course, is the way Monsanto has become a proxy for anti-GMO sentiment. True, this dynamic is not unique to biotechnology. Debates on pharmaceuticals, energy, and agriculture revolve around multinational companies that are stand-ins for…Continue Reading…
Just for kicks, take a guess when Michael Specter wrote this in the New Yorker: If the politics of genetically modified food has never been so anguished, the scientific prospects have never seemed more promising. The answer and his superb piece can be found here. Consider: Since his article appeared, the angry politics of genetically modified…Continue Reading…
As far as explainers go, I thought this Guardian piece discussing possible links between climate change and extreme weather was pretty good. What’s interesting to me is that it was written by Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. It’s part of a larger…Continue Reading…
Staking out the middle ground in these polarized times is not an easy thing to do. I know this from experience. For example, I’m pretty comfortable with what science tells us about climate change. To me, there’s a cumulative body of evidence that rises to the level of concern. But I also realize there is…Continue Reading…
If you follow the public debate on genetically modified foods, you know it’s become unhinged from reality. This is because green groups and influential voices in the food movement have allowed the fringe to hijack the conversation. Now that those furies have been let loose, it’s going to be that much harder to have a civil dialogue…Continue Reading…
During any given week, most articles on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) follow a simplistic and/or sensationalistic storyline. For example, here’s last week’s cover story in The Village Voice: The Monsanto-Is-Evil theme is a media staple, as is the GMO-Foods-Are-Dangerous theme, of which magazines like Details and Elle are piggybacking on. (I recently discussed the latter example). Too often…Continue Reading…
There is so much to admire about this New York Times story by Amy Harmon I don’t know where to begin. [UPDATE: This insightful take by Maggie Koerth-Baker at Boing Boing–which I excerpt below–captures what is remarkable about the piece.] So let’s start with a tweet from National Geographic’s executive environment editor Dennis Dimick: Must Read:…Continue Reading…
As I have previously observed, “the belief that GMO foods are deadly or potentially harmful” has come to dominate the public discourse on agricultural biotechnology. I suppose we can thank the whacky fringe elements for this (and their influential enablers). At this point, scientists and science-based communicators who engage in the biotech realm should be…Continue Reading…