The GM debate continues, and so it should - there is still disagreement as to the impacts of genetic modification on the environment and socioeconomic sphere. However, as far as health goes, there is a resounding agreement – GM foods are not bad for our bodies. At IFHP, in the interests of maintaining focus, we generally limit the remit of our discussions to science, (mostly) avoiding the enormously convoluted and (rightly) fraught topic of politics. We feel that, were we to broaden our scope to invite discourse on ethics and government, we would dilute and foggy our cause. Science is immensely powerful, and with great power comes great responsibility. We feel that politics stands a better chance of taking such responsibility if it anchors itself in evidence rather than misconception or aggravated fear. Perhaps even more important, we also feel that the public will be better able to *hold* political bodies to this responsibility if they themselves know “where scientific evidence ends and dogma and speculation begin”. Only then can we hope to stand a chance of conducting reasonable and constructive risk-benefit analyses of new technologies. The following article (from Nature, one of the most highly acclaimed scientific journals) takes an honest look at the current state of the GMO debate. As you’ll see, Science isn’t looking at GM through rose-coloured spectacles – it is aware of the risks, but broadly willing to take them as challenges in their stride, just as resourceful Homo sapiens approaches the risks entailed by so many other technological marvels.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 11:41:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015