Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science
October 5, 2015
GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science
by Kristine Mattis
In August of 2014, the website Gawker revealed documents that demonstrated the lengths to which the global chemical giant Monsanto would go in order to control the narrative about their products in particular, their genetically modified crops. At a minimum, Monsanto enlisted Condé Nast publications, and appealed to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in need of donations, to help produce a celebrity-driven video series in support of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While we all like to believe that our scientific/rational brains see through the transparent marketing, public relations rhetoric exists because it greatly sedates critical thought.
Although the proposed campaign by Monsanto never materialized, a quick perusing of GMO articles over the past year elicits suspicion that Monsantos and Condé Nasts relationship did not end. In addition, Monsanto almost certainly had its hand in a number of other propaganda ventures. Since last year, the pro-GMO rhetoric has increased tremendously in news media articles on genetically modified organisms. Recent disclosed documents have also exposed numerous scientific experts enlisted in Monsantos messaging. But what is most pernicious is that a whole new rhetorical talking point has come to the forefront, which threatens anyone particularly scientists who speak out against their tent pole technology: If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science.
The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change.
Unlike anthropogenic climate change, though, there is absolutely no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. In fact, each and every new GMO needs to be fully tested individually for its safety, because each genetic modification confers a not only a novel gene into the genome, but also a possible genetic interaction within the genome. The notion that one gene always only controls one trait is known to be far too simplistic. Often, many genes function in concert to produce traits, and sections of DNA can also turn traits on or off. Therefore, inserting novel genes into DNA sequences may affect untargeted traits in unpredictable ways.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/gmo-propaganda-and-the-sociology-of-science/
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)To point out how all of us unscientific, superstitious, ignorant, foolish people clearly don't know the truth about GMOs because... Bill Nye...
cprise
(8,445 posts)Or at least ignored as if it weren't itself a science.
Its why their arguments often remind me of Lysenko.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Michael Gordin notes that the whole "defend science, defend the establishment" movement was kicked off over worries over Lysenko--but it was also spurred by Corliss Lamont, who was so diehard Stalinist he forbade any talk of quantum anything as "woo": just ball-and-stick molecules (he was also a big civil-rights ally and Ned Lamont's grand-uncle when the party dropped its own candidate for Senator Palpatine)
they produced a rather Orwellian view of science where anything that was resisted had been done so rightly: they'd just been "waiting for the evidence"; but more than that it drew strength and reputation from more "humanistic" scientists like Sagan--but that just made the technocratic messages seem plausible: they were trying to resurrect some mythic Futurama that never existed, that was as dead as the LogPos they tried to resurrect or the Mexicans and Turks fleeing their "scientific" states
all my histsci acquaintances chortled when Cosmos II went after Kehoe: had this been 1992 Tyson would say it's wicked postmodernism or "junk science" to question him: besides a rigid ideology there's many ACSH-style financial ties
after all, Kurtz was the one who said that the surest sign of a New Dark Age was that people were questioning GMOs and nuke plants: "race realists" and warming deniers actually have a very strong presence in "movement skepticism"
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Similar in that regard to (though not the same as, no no no!) religion, politics, economics and astrology...