A group of 18 scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has called for a “global moratorium” on all clinical uses of human germline editing to ‘re-engineer’ humans.
As universities rely more on industry for funds, researchers taking a stand on health or environment say they’re sidelined. The Guardian newspaper delves into the influence that corporate money can have on academics and scientists, and therefore the accepted framing and narratives around global problems – and proposed solutions.
How do we deal with the increasing polarisation in the GMO debate? Care ethics, a theme coming from ecofeminism, allows, according to the authors, to assess technologies “not simply as devices designed to create a certain end experience for a user, but as transformative systems that smuggle in numerous social and political interests”
A new survey claims to show that GM food opponents are ignorant extremists. That’s how it’s being spun- with , arguably, too much enthusiasm – in the media but does the evidence for a dumb public with nothing to add to the GMO debate really stand up?
We have reached peak gene, and passed it and, according to Ken Richardson author of Genes, Brains and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence, we are not nearly as determined by our genes as once thought.
Corporate lobbyists argue that the innovation principle would boost innovations that could be used to tackle problems facing the planet such as decreasing the impact of animal feed on the planet, while civil society groups believe it leaves regulations vulnerable to corporate lobbyists and worry that it spells the end of the Precautionary Principle – which ensures only safe products reach the EU market.