Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
than the other for no obvious reason. We would not expect
all mice to die at the exact same moment. Likewise, even the
most tightly controlled experiments require the use of statis-
tics to say what health harms were caused by a particular food
and what harms were caused by randomness. Researchers
are human, and these judgments are probably impacted by
their general beliefs about GM food, but different conclu-
sions also involve simple differences in judgment, absent of
bias. Sometimes what appears to be an ideological bias against
GMOs could actually be the result of something more esoteric,
more mundane, and perfectly understandable.
Likewise, research interpreted to imply that scientists
favor GMOs because of corruption also has an alternative
explanation. After studying ninety-four articles on the
health impacts of GM products, a group of researchers found
that scientists who possessed a professional relationship
with a GMO company were more likely to conduct research
favorable to GMOs (though the source of funding did not
seem to matter). Does this prove that industry connections
influence research, or could it be that research influences
industry connections? A researcher who believes the data
clearly show GM foods to be safe is more likely to develop
ties with corporations. That belief in the safety of GM foods
will then impact the judgment calls made in future research.
Corruption may have nothing to do with it. One does sus-
pect that at least a few researchers are swayed by corporate
influence (they are humans, after all), but critics of GMOs
greatly overestimate their numbers.
The lesson the authors learned writing this chapter is that
the GMO debate has become so acrid that it is difficult to have
an honest discussion. If a researcher makes positive remarks
about biotechnology, she is accused of being a corporate shill,
and if one questions the safety of GM crops, she is ridiculed by
other scientists. Oddly, treating both sides of the debate with
respect only angers both sides. Nevertheless, it is impossible
to truly understand the controversy without taking both sides
