Quote:
Originally Posted by pstinard  I'm parking this article link on GMO's here so I can find it again when I can get behind the paywall. It's basically a psychoanalysis of GMO opponents--the abstract is written in a rather snotty manner, but that's par for the course for these kinds of things: Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition
I don't oppose GMO's on principle, but I do think that they have been overrated as a solution to the world's food problems, and if not regulated as thoroughly as, say, drugs are regulated, they *could* potentially be dangerous. This part of the abstract has raised my blood pressure by maybe a few millimeters of mercury: "Studies demonstrate again and again that GM crops make a valuable contribution to the development of a sustainable type of agriculture." I can't wait to read the full article tomorrow to see what they cite in support of that statement. I'll have more to say then... |
Okay, here is my promised analysis of an article on GMO's that is so abysmal that it depresses, rather than angers me. This article is written by a group of Belgian philosophers and biologists (working on GMO's of course) that attempts to psychoanalyze the reasons for opposition to GMO crops. The subject matter is not in the authors' areas of expertise, and the conclusions are foregone and predictable: GMO opponents are uneducated, irrational, dreamy romantics beholden to new age religion who would
LOVE GMO's, only if they knew the
TRUTH! And if the GMO opponents don't see the truth,
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Some quotes from the article. Please read these carefully and see how the reader is being manipulated:
"Research shows that cultivation of GM crops does not pose any specific health or environmental risks, but instead can bring benefits to local farmers. The reason for the discrepancy between public opinion and scientific evidence needs clarification. Some people suggest that post-Christian beliefs or romantic notions of nature are responsible, whereas others blame the lack of direct benefits for Western consumers. These accounts are definitely on the right track. Nonetheless, they fail to explain why opposition also occurs in non-Christian cultures, why people do not reject every technology that brings no immediate benefits, or why people prefer romantic views in the first place."
"We suggest a cognitive approach to account for the opposition to GMOs. In other words, we use ideas from the cognitive sciences, evolutionary psychology, and cultural attraction to rationalize the popularity and typical features of this phenomenon. We argue that intuitions and emotions make the mind highly susceptible to particular negative representations of GMOs."
"The intuitive appeal of anti-GMO representations Folk biology
The human mind intuitively understands how the biological world functions. One constituent of this folk biology is psychological essentialism that amounts to the belief that organisms hold an unobservable, immutable core determining their identity and, thus, their development and behavior."
"That people systematically prefer cisgenic over transgenic organisms provides another indication of an essentialist bias. In their campaigns, opponents of GMOs explicitly appeal to these essentialist intuitions by distributing edited images of tomatoes with fish tails or by claiming that biotech companies insert scorpion DNA elements into corn (
Zea mays) to produce crispy cornflakes. The notion that growing GM crops with herbicide tolerance will promote so-called superweeds falls back to the same misconception that a weed can be characterized by a single gene."
"Teleological and intentional intuitions
Another aspect of the intuitive mind that affects people's preferences for particular GMO representations and the perception of the risks involved are teleological and intentional intuitions. These intuitions tend to translate in religious beliefs, but they can also contribute to a quasi-religious view on nature."
"Emotions
A category of mental features that particularly interferes with people's risk assessment of GMOs are emotions. Disgust is especially important in this context."
"The preferential adoption of negative GMO representations takes place reflexively, instantaneously, and largely under the radar of conscious awareness. However, the resulting negative affect is consciously registered and, consequently, prompts people to justify their feelings. A form of motivated reasoning emerges in which arguments become highly prominent that are applicable equally to other technologies but are suddenly ignored. The alleged unnaturalness of genetic engineering or the involvement of multinationals can equally easily be applied against medical biotech applications, but only seem to be relevant in the case of GMOs."
"The human mind comprises evolved intuitions that shape and constrain cultural preferences. In the case of GMOs, folk biology, religious intuitions, and emotions such as disgust leave the mind readily seduced by representations of GMOs as abnormal or toxic. By pointing out how public aversion to GMOs thrives on such preferences, it is understandable why people continue to resort systematically to concerns about GMOs that are scientifically unsubstantiated."
"Education can, at least to some extent, abate the intuitive appeal of negative GMO representations. Instruction of young people about biotechnology and its implications will require educational strategies that specifically target and tweak intuitive modes of thinking. However, this method of immunizing minds is certainly not foolproof. Intuitive thinking remains a trap, even to the minds of experts. At the same time, scientists and institutions, companies and governments that communicate about GMOs and their potential risks can also appeal to the intuitive mind. Although GMOs are at a disadvantage because they are commonly associated with unnaturalness and trigger disgust, emphasis on the benefits would effectively induce sympathy."
"
By leading people to choose the wrong adversaries and to urge policy makers to take counter-effective measures, negative GMO representations may indeed exert a fatal attraction."