In "French GM-fed Rat Study Triggers Furore", Jonathon Amos writes about the controversy that a recently published study by a group of French scientists on the effects of genetically modified (GM) corn on rats fed on it (2012). According to Amos, the researchers found that a diet of GM food and herbicide correlated with earlier deaths, along with more cancers and other problems than for rats on non-GM diets. However, the study has been negatively criticised by other scientists for using bad research methods and statistical analysis.
As my introduction suggests, I was interested in this article because I think it shows us a very important characteristic of science and of all good academic work: it demonstrates the great value and need for argument and for criticism, especially negative criticism. When the Christian churches were powerful in Western culture, science was almost dead because the popes, bishops and priests did not allow disagreement or criticism, and the kings at the time used harsh laws to enforce that repressive censorship. Progress in science and every academic area was almost impossible because false ideas, bad understanding and nonsense could never be corrected. It is only when ideas are tested that truth can come to light. It is only when criticism is allowed, and encouraged, that opinions can be strong and healthy. I have no idea which groups of scientists are right about GM food, but because they disagree, evidence can be discovered, presented and arguments made so that one day we might learn the truth about GM crops and other complex questions. The wrong ideas can be proved wrong, and the right ideas given stronger support. This is a necessary foundation of science and all academic work. If disagreement, argument and negative comments were not allowed, knowledge would be impossible, and opinions would be made worthless - not just in science, but on every topic. And we would still be living in the awful Dark Ages when religions were powerful.
This is also a very practical reason why free speech is necessary for a democracy, even when some people hate it and are deeply offended. We should only limit free speech to topics where we are sure that ignorance and worthless, uninformed opinions are good things. Of course, sometimes ignorance really is a good thing. We do not, for example, want terrorists to know how to make nuclear weapons, so it's reasonable to censor that topic to enforce ignorance. But on the whole, and in academic work, we generally prefer knowledge to ignorance.
__________
Reference
I agree that controversy and disagreement are good things as long as they lead to a better result. For instance, if the controversy over a science experiment can prove a previous idea was wrong and then came up with a more reliable idea. I think it is good because the latter person might find some new evidences that made that person come closer to the fact. Also, I think that most of new scientific ideas resulted in a new technology that facilitated us and let us have better lives. However, if the controversy and disagreement lead to a worse situation, I'd rather say that ignorance is much better. As you can see in a political demonstration in a couple of years ago, there was nothing good happen besides loss of people. Therefore, it depends on what topic is controversial about.
ReplyDeleteThank you Peace,
DeleteI actually disagree that more ignorance on political and social issues might have been a good thing for Thai citizens. I think that it's ignorance that led to the violent and destructive nature of the protests. Because too many topics cannot be freely and honestly discussed, it is easy for rumours, false claims and other deceptions to go unchallenged and uncorrected. The result is that instead of a healthy argument in words, in newspapers, on-line and elsewhere, people are easily led to more drastic measures to express their frustration and anger at what seems to be serious injustices.
I think that if free speech were more strongly protected in Thailand, the violent protests of recent years would not have happened. People could have had their arguments openly in words, and misunderstandings, false beliefs, unfounded rumours and other errors on every side might have been corrected. Then better courses of action could have been peacefully agreed on.
I also think that violent and disruptive protests, such as when the Yellow group invaded Government House and the the airports, and the Red group occupied Rajprasong, are wrong and should not have been allowed. The leaders should all be in prison for inciting such harmful acts by the crowds.
But I also think that well founded knowledge and free speech is more likely to help avoid such problems than is ignorance and censorship on many politically and socially important topics.
As I had studies a case of Monsantos, this company has been attempting to monopolize agricultural products in many ways. For example, one of their products is the GM soybean seed that farmers can plant just one time because some genes in soybean are modified to prevent further cultivation. This means peasants must buy their seeds every time they start new planting.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, they aren't concerned about any side effects or negative health problems that can happen to the consumers, farmers, as well as the environment.
This kind of exploitation from gigantic (transnational) corporation causes a lot of protests and lawsuits, but it usually ends with the victory of the strong giant and the defeat of the weaker ordinary people.
When I read this artile, I think about controversy in working. If you have a idea for a new project that is completely differnt from your boss idea whether you show it directly. Exactly, disagreement will point a weak of project such as low profit, bad company's image or environment effect. Your disgreement might affect your progress in career. Some heads do not like follower who ague them. It seems difficult to show your opinion to people who are not on same level although it is a better than leader's idea.
ReplyDelete