I wish to point out a severe inconsistency in PR and ancillary
communications regarding minority opinions in science.

        I have noticed that dissidents can be praised as valuable or mocked
as cranks, depending on whether their unusual opinions seem to support the
political ideologies favoured by the media.
         For instance, the NZ Business Roundtable implies the IPCC is wrong
by touring not only deceitful propagandist Bjorn Lomborg but also (a few y
earlier) Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, a real climatologist.  The
purpose of such tours is to influence public opinion, and especially
politicians' opinions, thru the media.  When Lindzen spoke in Auckland near
the end of his tour, with a local meteorologist/physicist as host, he was
saying v little about the IPCC conclusions, and confined himself to correct
statements e.g water vapour is far more important than carbon dioxide as a
greenhouse gas.  But early in his tour Lindzen had been used by the
Roundtable to convey thru the media the impression that substantial
scientific dissent exists against the IPCC.
        As a serious dissident myself, I insist on the famous principle
that in developing scientific theories it is the ideas which must contend,
not personalities or ideologies.  I have long experience as a dissident in
not only applied science regarding pesticides, nuclear reactors, and other
dangerous technologies but also in scientific theory.  For instance, I have
the satisfaction of a recent acceptance of a paper 'Variety in DNA
Secondary Structure', putting in perspective the wrongful hegemony of "the"
double helix.  I am aware that dud scientific theories can get lined up
with evil ideologies to do great harm, e.g the Lysenko/Stalin disaster.  So
I of all people will insist on Lindzen's right to dissent, and I had a good
chat with him.  What I'm pointing out is that tiny minorities like him are
depicted by the media as respectable & significant, while (actually much
larger) minorities saying gene-tampering is generally dangerous are
depicted by the media as marginal, ignorant, 'bad science', even cranks.
        The media presumably think GM is the next big commercial fad
leading to advertisements.  Since most GM corporations have yet to win a
dollar of revenue, let alone turn a profit, few ads have yet been bought by
the GM trade, so I do wonder what the media motives are for their extremely
pro-GM bias.  I can only suppose that they think it is favoured by the govt
and by some big chemical companies and is therefore more likely to buy ads
in future compared with us independent scientists who buy few ads at any
time.
        What is happening, if my sketch is accurate, is commercial
overwhelming of science, and collosal diversion of public assets as well as
venture capitalism into a 'technology' whose scientific base, exemplified
by J Celera Venter, T Conner, etc etc, is such junk that the technology
cannot work as intended.  Since the unintended effects can be catastrophic,
rivalling nuclear war in severity and perhaps more long-lasting, where is
Henry Kendall now that we need him?  And to the extent that the GM experts
at UCS today are less respected by the media than Henry was, what can we do
about it?
        GM is dangerous in biological and social senses.  I am adding the
strenuous complaint that it is also a political ideology which ruthlessly
suppresses, with the help of craven media, scientific criticism of GM.  By
that suppression it has been instrumental in degrading science rapidly &
drastically.
        One aspect of that suppression is black-listing of critics such as
myself, as well as presenting
as expert critics of GM, almost exclusively, wimminsLib politicians who
happen to lack the education to understand the unprecendentedly complex
array of biological threats posed by GM.  As the senior Kiwi scientific
critic of GM, and with a list of credits in technology assessment, I might
be expected to be in the media commenting on GM; instead, I'm blacked out
by the media because of my notorious academic criticisms of wimminsLib.
        I do not suggest this is an entirely novel type of media vice.
Media are often, if not usually, dominated in their operating criteria &
prejudices by the dominant ideologies of the day (e.g in NZ today the
ruling Axis is tripartite:  WimminsLib/neoRacism/militant hx).   I merely
wish to point out that the prevalent ideological bias in selection of
experts is a main handicap for spreading the truth about GM and other
dangerous technologies, as well as choking off info on solution-multipliers
(notably organic agriculture as advocated & practised by the Prince of
Wales).  Because the Murdoch press & similar scum oppose the monarchy, they
will pull all sorts of dirty tricks to insult the Prince, and suppress his
fine achievements.

R