|
All organisations/individuals claiming to be independent and unbiased should be scrutinized. Regardless of a persons intentions, they have certain beliefs, experiences or education which may and can influence how they present information or facts to others. It is stated that sciene is based on facts and not fiction, but reading through scientific history proves that facts are somewhat elusive. In science a fact is dependent on observation, measurement and repeatability. Science may have progressed a long way since discussions about what exactly is electricity or magnetism, but how much do we know (or don't know) about the natural world and its intricate relationships.
Major arguments occur over concepts such as is the whole greater than the sum of its parts, which many scientist dispute, simply because it infers something akin to magic or even the existence of a god. By rephrasing the question to does science know what all the parts are and the relationships between those parts. This question could be asked in the context of genetic engineering, because to make any claims about human safety, environmental integrity or even economic benefits of genetically modified organisms, one needs to be able to answer yes to the above question. If the answer is no, then a decision about GE needs to include what are the alternatives and what are the advantages/disadvantages of those alternatives.
People who are against genetic engineering or voice a strong resistance to it, are sometimes labeled as Luddites, or against helping our farmers, or don't want to help fend off world hunger. These are emotive and desperate claims as it is easy to label someone a Luddite than it is to actually address a particular short coming or unknown about genetic engineering. Those who do not want to openly debate the pros and cons of genetic engineering could be called ignorant of the limitations of scientific knowledge, or arrogant enough to believe that only their opinions matter. The alternative view would be they have ulterior motives based on prestige or financial gain. We may never have the complete answer to questions such as is genetic engineering safe, but only by challenging what are claimed to be facts will we start approaching the total answer by exposing myths in and about science, and myths in and about what the public is presented.
Several sources have collated a questions/answer section outlining other perspectives of GE that are not make public by those organisations pushing or advocating GE. A list is compiled below for your convenience. It is recommended you take some time with these sites and go in with an open and inquiring mind to get the most.
In the table headed Pro GE Food is an entry for CSIRO: Gene Technology in Australia, FAQs and Issues. I have taken the two associated FAQ sheets and annotated them with my own questions and/or comments here. Obviously you will have your own questions or ideas, but it is important that each of us draws our own conclusion based on as much accurate information that we can get. Decisions we make today will effect many generations to come.
| BioTechnology Australia Fact sheet: Genetic modification myths. This is an agency of the Australian Government. |
| Biotechnology - Good to grow This website is sponsored by Monsanto. |
| CSIRO: Gene Technology in Australia, FAQs and Issues. |
| CSIRO: Gene Technology in Australia, a glossary of terms. |