Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-whwnh Total loading time: 0.276 Render date: 2022-07-06T16:54:37.180Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue

“Antiscience Zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

This article argues that the controversy over genetically modified crops is best understood not in terms of the supposed bias, dishonesty, irrationality, or ignorance on the part of proponents or critics, but rather in terms of differences in values. To do this, the article draws on and extends recent work of the role of values and interests in science, focusing particularly on inductive risk and epistemic risk, and it shows how the GMO debate can help to further our understanding of the various epistemic risks that are present in science and how these risks might be managed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†.

A preliminary version of this article was presented at the 2017 Conference on Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at the University of Texas at Dallas. Thanks to the conference participants, as well as to Michael Hoffman, Bryan Norton, Neil Van Leeuwen, John Walsh, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

References

Biddle, Justin B. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B. 2014. “Can Patents Prohibit Research? On the Social Epistemology of Patenting and Licensing in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 45:1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B. 2016. “Inductive Risk, Epistemic Risk, and Overdiagnosis of Disease.” Perspectives on Science 24 (2): 192205..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B. 2017. “Genetically Engineered Crops and Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4:117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B., and Kukla, Rebecca. 2017. “The Geography of Epistemic Risk.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, ed. Elliott, K. and Richards, T., 215–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blancke, Stefaan, Breusegem, Frank Van, Jaeger, Geert De, Braeckman, Johan, and van Montagu, Marc. 2015. “Fatal Attraction: The Intuitive Appeal of GMO Opposition.” Trends in Plant Science 20:414–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borlaug, Norman. 2000. “Ending World Hunger: The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry.” Plant Physiology 124:487–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churchman, C. West. 1948. Theory of Experimental Inference. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). 2009. “Retraction Guidelines.” http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
DeFrancesco, Laura. 2013. “How Safe Does Transgenic Food Need to Be?Nature Biotechnology 31:794802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domingo, J. L., and Bordonaba, J. G. 2011. “A Literature Review on the Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants.” Environment International 37 (4): 734–42..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 2007. “Fact and Value.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions, ed. Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., and Wylie, A., 2141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin 2013. “Selective Ignorance and Agricultural Research.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 38:328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and McKaughan, Daniel. 2009. “How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal.” Philosophy of Science 76:598611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin, and Richards, Ted, eds. 2017. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glenna, Leland, Tooker, John, Welsh, Rick, and Ervin, David. 2015. “Intellectual Property, Scientific Independence, and the Efficacy and Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops.” Rural Sociology 80:147–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya. 2016. “Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy.” Perspectives on Science 24:552–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1965. “Science and Human Values.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, 8196. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, Dan. 2015. “Epistemological Depth in a GM Crops Controversy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50:112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Dan 2017. “Genetically Modified Crops, Inclusion, and Democracy.” Perspectives on Science 25 (4): 488520..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Dan, and Millstein, Roberta. 2016. “Genetically Modified Organisms: Non-health Issues.” In Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, 111. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Michael H. G. 2011. “Analyzing Framing Processes in Conflicts and Communication by Means of Logical Argument Mapping.” In Framing Matters: Perspectives on Negotiation Research and Practice in Communication, ed. Donohue, W. A., Rogan, R. G., and Kaufman, S., 136–64. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Howard, Don A. 2006. “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, ed. Schickore, J. and Steinle, F., 322. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Stephen. 2015. “Inductive Risks and the Contexts of Communication.” Synthese 192:7996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack. 2004. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492–2000. 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon. 2015. “An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 40:883914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2017. “Infertility, Epistemic Risk, and Disease Definitions.” Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1405-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupferschmidt, Kai. 2013. “Activists Destroy ‘Golden Rice’ Field Trial.” Science, August 9. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/activists-destroy-golden-rice-field-trial.Google Scholar
Lacey, H. 2005. Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy over Transgenic Crops. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., and Oberauer, K. 2013. “The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science.” PLoS ONE 8 (10): e75637. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen 1996. “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy.” In Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, ed. Nelson, L. H. and Nelson, J., 3958. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 2010. “Epistemic Circularity and Epistemic Incommensurability.” In Social Epistemology, ed. Haddock, Adrian, Millar, Alan, and Pritchard, Duncan, 262–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1983. “Values in Science.” In PSA 1982: Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Peter D. Asquith and Thomas Nickles, 3–28. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. 2015. “GMOs? Not So Fast.” Common Reader: A Journal of the Essay, May 8. https://commonreader.wustl.edu/c/gmos-not-so-fast/.Google Scholar
Company, Monsanto. 2008. “2008 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement.” http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/tug_sample.pdf.Google Scholar
Mooney, Chris. 2014. “Stop Pretending That Liberals Are Just as Anti-science as Conservatives.” Mother Jones, September. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines.Google Scholar
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Navin, Mark. 2016. Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Epistemology, Ethics and Health Care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nestle, Marion. 2010. Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety. Updated and expanded ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1999. Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues. https://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/GM-crops-full-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2003. The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. https://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/GM-Crops-Discussion-Paper-2003.pdf.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1994. “Gender and the Biological Sciences.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24 (suppl. 20): 2142.Google Scholar
Pechlaner, Gabriela. 2012. Corporate Crops: Biotechnology, Agriculture, and the Struggle for Control. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, Pew Research. 2016. “The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides over Food Science.” http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/12/19170147/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert, and Schiebinger, Londa. 2008. Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20 (1): 16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific American. 2009. “Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?” August 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/.Google Scholar
SEARICE (Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment). 2013. Going Against the Golden Grain: A Primer on Golden Rice. http://searice.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GoingAgainstTheGoldenGrain_screen.pdf.Google Scholar
Séralini, Gilles-Eric, Clair, Emilie, Mesnage, Robin, Gress, Steeve, Defarge, Nicolas, Malatesta, Manuela, Hennequin, Didier, and de Vendômois, Joël Spiroux. 2012. “Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:4221–31. [Retracted.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shermer, Michael. 2013. “The Liberals’ War on Science.” Scientific American, February 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/.Google Scholar
Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Berge, J. B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., and Ricroch, A. E. 2012. “Assessment of the Health Impact of GM Plant Diets in Long-Term and Multigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: A Literature Review.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 50:1134–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, Paul B. 2010. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40:92101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten 2013. “Epistemic Trust in Science.” British Studies in Philosophy of Science 64:233–53.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., and Shi, F. 2011. “Do Genetically Modified Crops Affect Animal Reproduction? A Review of the Ongoing Debate.” Animal 5:1048–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

“Antiscience Zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

“Antiscience Zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

“Antiscience Zealotry”? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *