This is one of several pieces in Nathanael Johnson’s ongoing re-examination of GMO technology at Grist. Links to his previous stories can be found in Additional Resources below. This week, Johnson investigates the extreme, often flaming defense from scientists when the safety of GMOs is called into question. This extremism, he proposes, may be a barrier for collaborative, productive science. An excerpt:
When a study came out in 2012 associating gruesomely lumpy rats with genetically modified food, critics trashed it so thoroughly that a group of researchers and advocates called foul. This went beyond legitimate scientific critique, they wrote. It was evidence that “those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results.”
More recently, a long-term GM feeding trial of pigs received a similar (though milder) treatment. Tom Laskawy here at Grist made the point that, though this study had flaws, the dismissals seemed knee-jerk — ideological rather than thoughtful.
Read the full, original story here: “Is extremism in defense of GM food a vice?”
Additional Resources:
The Johnson-Grist series:
- The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?
- The GM safety dance: What’s rule and what’s real
- Genetic engineering vs. natural breeding: What’s the difference?
- Is nature a cradle or a battlefield?
- Genetically engineered food: Allergic to regulations?
- Genetically modified seed research: What’s locked and what isn’t
GLP executive director Jon Entine’s response the Grist series:
- “Call to action: Grist reevaluates crop biotechnology; It’s time the rest of journalism does too,” Genetic Literacy Project