GMO in Ghana, & Matters Arising-Part 2

   

Now before I address the last two concerns ( III and IV ), I think it’s important I give an explanation on the difference in perspectives from scientists and non-scientists. I think things get lost in translation because of a misunderstanding of the scientific method or process of evaluating information. I’ll list a few points here:

• ·       Science is not dogma. It’s more of a way of thinking. A self-correcting mechanism that constantly tries to improve.

• ·       Even if your experiment yields results that support your hypothesis (claim) you did not necessarily prove you are right. You just failed to falsify your claim. If your data is falsifiable, testable and reproducible, you have an audience. Even long established “facts” or methods are constantly being tested to see the conditions under which they will fail. Room should always be left for doubt and curiosity. Dissent backed with data is welcome and even rewarded. Every claim or theory can be challenged or improved, nothing should be untouchable.

• ·       With room being left for doubt and new findings, do not expect to get emphatic statements. Neither should people be making emphatic statements especially from inconclusive data. Statements like “We are 100% sure of …” or  “Of course this will work…” only serve as comfort for those looking for assurances and not facts. Doing this is not being true to Science. I think its best to just tell people what the data suggest and to what degree of confidence can be drawn from it.

I understand when it comes to things like food, drugs, life altering technologies people want assurances, but it really serves no purpose.  So I will only tell you what the data suggest and what conclusions I drew from it.

That said, I will respond to III and IV

Consensus - Even scientists are not unanimously on the safety of GMOs. Hence, GMOs cannot be trusted.

Well, I just hope you know by now that majority is not always right. I think even outside science this is true. There are always constant experiments and seminars that test, discuss and challenge new and long held theories. As stated earlier, if you have falsifiable, testable and reproducible data, you get an audience. Many scientific breakthroughs came from people who held unpopular opinions but provided credible data to back their claims. These ‘unpopular opinions’ held after criticisms and after being reproduced by other scientists. So it’s best to stop looking for comfort in majority opinions. Rather, make sure a claim is backed by credible data. Consensus does not lend credence to a claim so point III is a very poor argument.

GMOs are unhealthy, toxic, cancerous, etc.

Remember I mentioned I could only tell you what the data available suggest. Also its best to read further and maintain an honest approach to new information being careful to avoid confirmation bias. Here are a few resources to start from.

 Pro-GMO resources:

·       http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf

This publication analyzed about 1783 studies on the safety of GMO foods to humans, animals and the environment. They found little to no evidence that it is not safe.

·       Academicsreview.org is a website by scientists who consider and analyze public claims against peer-reviewed scientific data. It is also a good start for anyone interested in learning about both sides of the debate.

Anti-GMO resources:

·       http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf

Which talks about studies that raise concern about certain GMO crops

·       GMWatch – You can follow them on twitter (@GMWatch). According to their bio, they are committed to countering the propaganda of the biotech industry.

I am concerned when I see the push against GMOs from biotech companies turn into anti-GMO (all products) and the technology of genetic engineering.

Maybe it helps the narrative- “Western corporations pushing deadly seeds on developing countries for profit and to use them as guinea pigs” This makes for a dramatic storyline and easily appeals to emotions, cause fear and quickly garner support. But it is also irresponsible - are the claims really backed by scientific data? And is the data credible or just a case of confusing correlation with causation?

I have spent months reading arguments and studies on both sides, there is more data that suggest GMOs are safe as far as we know. But studies that suggest otherwise deserve a “fair hearing”, I mean they deserve to be scrutinized and further tested like any claim to eliminate other logical causes that can bring about the results.

However, so far I have seen emphatic statements like “GMOs cause cancer, are toxic” which is made from studies that are inconclusive. This is not scientifically sound or socially responsible.

Secondly, evaluation of GMOs should be done on a case-by-case basis. Example, if corn from Monsanto is found not to be as effective or safe as claimed by the company, they need to go back to the lab and improve it. How does that result in a condemnation of all GMOs (including the ones that have passed safety tests) and even the technology of genetic engineering? When science fails, you need more science to correct it. You do not call for a ban on driving or flying when a car or airplane malfunctions.

When polio vaccines were mass tested in the US, there were cases of paralytic polio in children in northeast US, which even caused deaths. It took going back to the lab to find out why, make improvements and now polio is said to be eradicated in the western hemisphere with only a handful cases elsewhere. It’s either that or deaths and epidemics. Let’s not reject good science because we do not understand it and are having a knee-jerk reaction because we trigger words used by alarmists.

There is also the idea that GMOs are inherently harmful because scientists have disturbed the “natural order”, stemming from the belief that nature comes perfect and good. This is fantasy; nature is far from perfect, nature fights against humans sometimes. And when that happens, it takes human intervention to mitigate the effects. Science is an example of human endeavors to intervene. It never promises to be perfect or 100% safe, but Science does the best to limit harmful effects while solving a problem. So, when faced with food security issues, why dismiss a promising technology because we do not understand it, or do not like the companies involved?

I should note however, that there is hardly any long term or epidemiological studies on GMOs as far as I know. Long-term studies will go beyond current safety tests to either further support safety of GMOs or provide evidence to the contrary.