Journalistic ethics require objectivity and balance.
Although that may sound straightforward, reporting on
genetically modified (GM) crops and biotechnology is
anything but. The terrain is full of paradoxes. Notional
‘good guys’ such as non-government organisations
(NGOs) – would-be guardians of the environment and
human well-being – have no qualms about distorting
information about GM organisms even when they lead
to benefits for the environment and people. Witness the
campaigns against vitamin A rice and Bt cotton. ‘Card-carrying’ scientists
champion research that is poorly designed and where the conclusions
bear no statistical significance. Witness the ‘circus’ around the publication,
retraction and republication of Gilles Séralini’s paper. One might think that
people approach the issue on the basis of evidence. That seems not to be
the case. Rather, pre-existing world views seem to dominate. Politicians and
NGOs appear to exploit these attitudes, fanning the flames for their own
ends. As with climate science, it seems dismayingly easy to distort logic and
evidence. Staggeringly, the attack on GM crops seems to know no bounds.
Recently European NGOs including Greenpeace called for the abolition
of the position of the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Officer.
Accusations of conflict of interest and undue corporate influence resonate
and stick like mud. There is a view that providing information barely helps:
it is only filtered to fortify pre-existing positions. It is disheartening, but that
is the nature of public discourse. Journalists can only continue to explain
the issues and the science as objectively and clearly as possible. The battle
is not just about GM crops but for science itself.
