The folks over at the Genetic Literacy
Project are featuring an insightful article on how activists
gin up junk science to support their predetermined views. The
article, “‘Parallel
science’ of NGO advocacy groups: How post-modernism encourages
pseudo-science” is by Marcel Kuntz, who is the director of
research at the French National Center for Scientific Research.
From the article:
Political ecologists–commentators in the media and among NGO
advocacy groups–like science…when it confirms their views. When it
contradicts them, rather than changing their minds, they often
prefer to change the science to fit their ideology. They have thus
created a “parallel science.” Which should not be confused with
pseudo-sciences (e.g. astrology, false medicine, the paranormal,
ufology, etc.).Pseudo-sciences may harm naive believers, parallel “science” is
harming democracy. It is a component of a predetermined political
project to the exclusive benefit of the ideological views of a
minority. “Parallel science” seemingly resembles science, but it
differs from science since its conclusions precede
experimentation.Parallel “science” has been created to replace scientists,
especially in risk assessment, by “experts” (often self-proclaimed)
supportive of a political project. This parallel “science” is
hidden behind positive-sounding terms, such as “citizen science” or
“independent” or “whistleblower”, while mainstream scientists are
accused of having “conflicts of interest” or having ties with
“industry”. In order to further propagate distrust in current risk
assessment, parallel “science” will invoke unrelated past health
problems or environmental damages, but never to the way science has
solved problems. …Why is parallel “science” not discredited and why is it
represented so uncritically by the media? The answer partly lies in
the current dominance of a relativist ideology. The danger of such
a postmodern approach to science is that it considers all points of
views to be equally valid and thus raises the value of
“independent” (in fact ideological) views to the same level as
scientific ones.
Let me give an example of how “parallel science” manufactures
propaganda for activist groups with which they can mislead the
credulous. In March, 2014, Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist in
Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists,
stated in no less a place than MIT’s
Technology Review:
It’s also worth noting that there’s
no real consensus on GMO crop safety.
As evidence that there’s “no real consensus,” to what website
did Gurian-Sherman link? A declaration issued by the European
Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility.
ENSSER is a collection of long-time foes of agricultural
biotechnology. The disingenuous statement has so far been signed by
fewer than 300 scientists, including such anti-biotech luminaries
as Charles Benbrook, Vandana Shiva, Gilles-Eric Seralini, and
Gurian-Sherman himself. Referring to this declaration as
evidence against biotech crop safety is akin to citing a statement
from tobacco company scientists asserting that cigarette smoking
isn’t a risk factor for lung cancer.
See also my earlier post today on Seralini’s
anti-biotech junk science.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1requx6
via IFTTT