"Avdramatisera genmodifierad växtförädling" - Aktuella frågor - Sydsvenskan - Nyheter dygnet runt: "För att klara framtida behov av livsmedel är det nödvändigt att utveckla olika tekniker inom växtförädling. Med genmodifiering kan växtförädlingen uppnå resultat som inte är möjliga med andra förädlingstekniker, skriver docent Anders Falk på Jordbruksverket."
There is still a great controversy between the US, which is for GMO, and the EU which is highly restrictive. It is also so that Europeans does not seem so fascinated with the technology as such, notwithstanding the safety concerns. They simply don't like it. Since the US currently are more deft in science than the EU, it is clear that scientific arguments in this case don't work on the Europeans.
It is interesting to compare the use of science for the argumentation of using GMOs and that of scientific arguments in the climate change debate. It is, for example, obvious that scientific arguments work better in Europe than in the US. There has even been arguments for letting the scientists rule the world even if this is a little too Platonic for most people. Turning this against the Europeans it might be so that the issues at hand cannot only be discussed by scientific arguments.
Anders Falk in the article in Sydsvenskan therefore seems to be American in character and I must spontaneously agree with him that in all probability there should be great possibilities with GMOs. Science in general, and molecular biology in particular, has shown tremendous progress during the last century. However, this is more of a political opinion than it is a thorough scientific investigation of possible hazards with the technology in question. The use of scientific argumentation is seemingly very political.
Amorteringskravet är symbolpolitik – artikel i UNT
8 timmar sedan