Rationalizing the GMO Debate: The Ordonomic Approach to Addressing Agricultural Myths.

The public discourse on the acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not only controversial, but also infused with highly emotional and moralizing rhetoric. Although the assessment of risks and benefits of GMOs must be a scientific exercise, many debates on this issue seem to remain impervious to scientific evidence. In many cases, the moral psychology attributes of the general public create incentives for both GMO opponents and proponents to pursue misleading public campaigns, which impede the comprehensive assessment of the full spectrum of the risks and benefits of GMOs. The ordonomic approach to economic ethics introduced in this research note is helpful for disentangling the socio-economic and moral components of the GMO debate by re- and deconstructing moral claims.

'Holding' and 'endorsing' claims in the course of scientific activities.

My principal aims are to show that holding, adopting and endorsing (definitions of which I provide) are distinct cognitive attitudes that may be taken towards claims at different moments of scientific activities, and that none of them are reducible to acceptance (as defined by Jonathan Cohen); to explore in detail the differences between holding and accepting, using the controversies about GMOs to provide illustrations; and to draw some implications pertinent to democratic decision-making concerning public policies about science and technology, and to the responsibilities that scientists thereby incur.

Popularizing dissent: A civil society perspective.

This article theorizes civil society groups' attempts to popularize opposition to genetic modification in New Zealand as deliberative interventions that seek to open up public participation in science-society governance. In this case, the popularization strategies were designed to intensify concerns about social justice and democratic incursions, mobilize dissent and offer meaningful mechanisms for navigating and participating in public protest. Such civic popularization efforts, we argue, are more likely to succeed when popularity and politicization strategies are judiciously integrated to escalate controversy, re-negotiate power relations and provoke agency and action.

Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany.

Genetic modification remains a controversial issue. The aim of this study is to analyse the attitudes towards genetic modification, the knowledge about it and its acceptability in different application areas among German consumers. Results are based on a survey from spring 2005. An exploratory factor analysis is conducted to identify the attitudes towards genetic modification. The identified factors are used in a cluster analysis that identified a cluster of supporters, of opponents and a group of indifferent consumers. Respondents' knowledge of genetics and biotechnology differs among the found clusters without revealing a clear relationship between knowledge and support of genetic modification. The acceptability of genetic modification varies by application area and cluster, and genetically modified non-food products are more widely accepted than food products. The perception of personal health risks has high explanatory power for attitudes and acceptability.

Biotech's defining moments.

Confusion about terms related to biotechnology--genetic modification, GMOs, genetic engineering, transgenic, and all the rest--has been around for decades. This definitional dysfunction has created myriad opportunities for mischief and given rise to widespread over-regulation, diminished agricultural R&D, ill-advised conferences and risk assessment studies, flawed analyses (including a recent tome from the OECD), fear-mongering by NGOs, and a perplexed public. Greater precision in terminology would improve the lot of scientists, the quality of public policy and, eventually, human and environmental health.

The meaning of "natural": process more important than content.

The meaning of the desirable attribute "natural" was explored in two samples, American college students and adults in the Philadelphia jury pool. Participants rated the naturalness of a variety of "natural" entities, before and after they were transformed by operations such as freezing, adding or removing components, mixing with other natural or unnatural entities, domestication, and genetic engineering. Results support four hypotheses. First, the principle of contagion accounts for many aspects of the reduction of naturalness by contact with unnatural entities. Second, chemical transformations reduce naturalness much more than physical transformations do. Third, the history of an entity's processing is more important in determining its naturalness than is the nature of the entity's contents. Fourth, mixing like natural entities (e.g., water from different sources) does not markedly reduce naturalness. The insertion of a gene from another species, the process used in producing genetically modified organisms, produces the biggest drop in naturalness; domestication, a human-accomplished activity that changes genotype and phenotype in major ways, is considered much less damaging to naturalness.