The National Academy would (I hope)
never solicit testimony from creationists about the findings of
evolutionary science. But when it comes to biotech crops, the
National Academy has succumbed to the moral equivalent of listening
to creationists. How? By inviting numerous neoluddite charlatans
testify before a National Research Council (NRC) panel that is
working on a new report evaluating the safety of modern biotech
crops this week. The
anti-technology activist groups that appeared before the NAS
panel include the Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, ETC
Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Union of Concerned
Scientists and Consumers Union.
Jon Entine, who heads up the invaluable Genetic Literacy
Project, also testified and warned the NAS panel about how
inviting the claque of anti-biotechnology quacks to appear before
them will backfire.
From Entine’s testimony:
I don’t question the sincerity of the concerns of those invited
about the future of food and farming any more than I would question
the fervent belief of a Young Earth Christian that the earth is
6,000 years old. And I appreciate the bind that you faced in
organizing this project. While not respected in the broader science
community, some of those invited are part of the public
conversation, just as creationists are part of the debate over
evolution.You face pressure to demonstrate to skeptics of GE that the NRC
and by proxy the American people are listening to their concerns.
Perhaps it made sense to invite science’s harshest critics. But
panel members, don’t assume that those who will have spoken will
ultimately embrace this process. Emboldened by the implicit
endorsement that an appearance at the Academy confers, they will
resume their campaigns to scare the public about a safe technology.
Don’t be shocked that for years to come, they will make hay that
they have been “consulted” by the National Academy of Sciences
about GMOs. Don’t be surprised that when you issue your report in
2016, you will be ridiculed for holding what they will then
characterize as a “rigged NRC process”.That’s even more of a reason that if your goal is to demonstrate
your leadership, it’s critical that you speak out about what the
consensus science shows—no wavering or hedging to appease critics
that fail to use good science. You may have to take a forceful and
uncomfortable stand in the face of vocal criticism. Science is not
a democracy. We don’t get to vote on whether a whale is a fish or a
mammal…The scientific consensus does not mean the public embraces sound
science on GMOs anymore than the certainty of natural selection
closes the public debate over evolution. Polls indicate half of
Americans believe in creationism or God-guided evolution…You, this panel have an opportunity to end this charade,
this faux debate over GMO safety: There are simply no credible
studies in top flight journals—and none that has been repeated—that
suggest serious likely safety issues that would not also apply to
conventional or organic foods.
Entine’s
whole testimony is well worth reading. Let’s hope that the NRC
panel takes it to heart.
For more background, see my article, “The
Top 5 Lies About Biotech Crops.“
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qKhfVE
via IFTTT