The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
To put it simply, all it takes for pseudoscience to win, is for science communicators to do nothing. . . .
. . . . [M]edia outlets themselves are rarely of any help. Which is more likely to get an audience’s attention? Images of rats suffering from giant tumors, or the retraction of a poorly done study? NGOs such as Greenpeace are given free reign by many politicians and media outlets because they are seen as “non profit” and therefore “pure” in some way. But, is their need to keep members hooked and sending in dues and donations really any different than Monsanto needing to keep profits up and their shareholders happy? Monsanto at least has a system of checks built into their operations. They have to keep their customers happy, because they need a steady profit flow to keep their shareholders happy. This at the risk of being taken to court decades later for harm done, even unintentionally. What customers does Greenpeace need to keep happy? Who can take Greenpeace to court decades later if the banana or orange industries are allowed to die because of their lobbying and fear mongering? Who can take Friends of the Earth to court for doing everything in their power to prevent a solution to vitamin A deficiency? That is unclear as they are not corporations with built in check systems. Why is unintentional harm from a company more of a crime than intentional harm from an NGO?
Read full, original post: I Love GMOs (And So Can You!): What I Learned In Two Years