The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
. . . . On June 30, 110 Nobel laureates from around the world signed a letter demanding that . . . Greenpeace stop its campaign against GM crops. . . .
. . . .
The eminent scientists appear to have learned little about opposition to GM crops . . . Social science research suggests they are misinformed and their approach is misguided. Opposition . . . is not always based exclusively on scientific risks and benefits and neither is it grounded in emotion or dogma. To characterise opposition in this way only serves to inflame . . . It is therefore unlikely to help us realise the potential of GM crops in feeding the world.
. . .[We] have been studying the acrimonious debate about agricultural biotechnology for several years. Our research has identified five requirements for advancing a responsible debate . . . These are a commitment to honesty; recognition of the values underlying the practice of science; involvement of a broad range of people; consideration . . . of alternatives; and a preparedness to respond.
We believe that this approach will moderate the debate. . . But the attitudes of many scientists stand in the way of such progress.
Read full, original post: Why scientists’ failure to understand GM opposition is stifling debate and halting progress
