A new public dialogue on gene edited farm animals, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, BBSRC and Sciencewise, challenges the notion that members of the public are incapable of contributing to complex policy and regulatory discussions
How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science
Reclaiming a baseline of accountability is the first step in building public confidence in regulatory systems that work for people as well as science that the public believes in.
US academics feel the invisible hand of politicians and big agriculture
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.
What care ethics can bring to the GMO conversation
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”
Are GM food opponents stupid?
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?
Opinion: Science denialism is dangerous. But so is science imperialism.
In this struggle to ensure that science is not pushed out from its well-earned place in our polity by those with political or economic motivations to do so, is there a risk of coming on too strong?