Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,211 posts)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:03 AM Oct 2015

GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science

October 5, 2015
GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science

by Kristine Mattis

In August of 2014, the website Gawker revealed documents that demonstrated the lengths to which the global chemical giant Monsanto would go in order to control the narrative about their products – in particular, their genetically modified crops. At a minimum, Monsanto enlisted Condé Nast publications, and appealed to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in need of donations, to help produce a celebrity-driven video series in support of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While we all like to believe that our scientific/rational brains see through the transparent marketing, public relations rhetoric exists because it greatly sedates critical thought.

Although the proposed campaign by Monsanto never materialized, a quick perusing of GMO articles over the past year elicits suspicion that Monsanto’s and Condé Nast’s relationship did not end. In addition, Monsanto almost certainly had its hand in a number of other propaganda ventures. Since last year, the pro-GMO rhetoric has increased tremendously in news media articles on genetically modified organisms. Recent disclosed documents have also exposed numerous scientific experts enlisted in Monsanto’s messaging. But what is most pernicious is that a whole new rhetorical talking point has come to the forefront, which threatens anyone – particularly scientists – who speak out against their “tent pole” technology: If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science.

The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change.

Unlike anthropogenic climate change, though, there is absolutely no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. In fact, each and every new GMO needs to be fully tested individually for its safety, because each genetic modification confers a not only a novel gene into the genome, but also a possible genetic interaction within the genome. The notion that one gene always only controls one trait is known to be far too simplistic. Often, many genes function in concert to produce traits, and sections of DNA can also turn traits on or off. Therefore, inserting novel genes into DNA sequences may affect untargeted traits in unpredictable ways.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/gmo-propaganda-and-the-sociology-of-science/

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
2. How long before the "GMOs are wonderful" contingent shows up in this thread?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:13 AM
Oct 2015

To point out how all of us unscientific, superstitious, ignorant, foolish people clearly don't know the truth about GMOs because... Bill Nye...

cprise

(8,445 posts)
3. They're essentially trying to portray ecology as anti-science
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:26 AM
Oct 2015

Or at least ignored as if it weren't itself a science.

Its why their arguments often remind me of Lysenko.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
4. corporate science has such an interesting history because it's so ... coalitional
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:59 AM
Oct 2015

Michael Gordin notes that the whole "defend science, defend the establishment" movement was kicked off over worries over Lysenko--but it was also spurred by Corliss Lamont, who was so diehard Stalinist he forbade any talk of quantum anything as "woo": just ball-and-stick molecules (he was also a big civil-rights ally and Ned Lamont's grand-uncle when the party dropped its own candidate for Senator Palpatine)

they produced a rather Orwellian view of science where anything that was resisted had been done so rightly: they'd just been "waiting for the evidence"; but more than that it drew strength and reputation from more "humanistic" scientists like Sagan--but that just made the technocratic messages seem plausible: they were trying to resurrect some mythic Futurama that never existed, that was as dead as the LogPos they tried to resurrect or the Mexicans and Turks fleeing their "scientific" states

all my histsci acquaintances chortled when Cosmos II went after Kehoe: had this been 1992 Tyson would say it's wicked postmodernism or "junk science" to question him: besides a rigid ideology there's many ACSH-style financial ties

after all, Kurtz was the one who said that the surest sign of a New Dark Age was that people were questioning GMOs and nuke plants: "race realists" and warming deniers actually have a very strong presence in "movement skepticism"

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. And people scoff when I say that science is just another social belief system...
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 05:57 AM
Oct 2015

Similar in that regard to (though not the same as, no no no!) religion, politics, economics and astrology...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»GMO Propaganda and the So...