pseudo-experts on GM
I have
observed that many concerned scientists stay on the fence, using as an
excuse the unreliable ravers who over the past decade insist on
fronting in the media for our movement.
Is it
not overdue to bring into focus those who claim a 'right' to issue any
sloppy utterance they carelessly fabricate or relay, and why they are
not held to any duty to refrain from uttering errors that would tend
to bring into disrepute the movement for control of this most
dangerous technology?
The
credibility of the cause is of very great importance, for reasons
which are widely known and obvious. The hazards of
gene-tampering are comparable to those of nuclear weapons; this has
been clear to experts like Jonathan King, Ruth Hubbard, David Straton,
etc since gene-splicing was invented 3 decades ago. Prince
Charles has more recently given an immaculate lead in opposition to
this dangerous technology, and in developing organic horticulture as
the only alternative. He evidently gets his statements checked
by experts before he puts them out, and the result is an impeccable
record for accuracy. Reliable facts, and clear reasoning, will
be required if the public are to bring gene-tampering under control.
This principle has yet to be adopted by loose cannon Mae-Wan Ho.
I have
argued for some years that the main reason for the persistence of the
embarrassing usurpers is that they are primarily WimminsLibbers.
Some of them have expert editors or ghost-writers who help somewhat,
but those servants tend to be transient; this does not bother the
PowerHarpies, because their own overassertiveness is their main goal.
Not subject to internal criticism, and so scornful of the enemy that
arming them with valid criticisms is assumed to be a negligible
blunder, these megalomaniacs - typefied by the radically
sloppy & insolent Ho - just flail about themselves
fecklessly; they insult and try to intimidate anyone who
attempts to help them, even privately, to achieve reasonable standards
of accuracy. What a wonky scene!
Many of
their errors turn out with luck to be minor, not strictly material to
the correctness of the general gist. But the game is not played
honestly, by Monsanto PR agents or by Vivian Moses, Rick Roush, Marta
McGloughlin, and other PR agents. These operatives will make
great play with any defect issuing from 'our side',
discrediting in the eyes of uncommitted observers any scientifically
inaccurate utterance and by (dishonest) implication discrediting the
whole case for control of GM. I have encountered numerous
scientists who do feel at least vaguely concerned about GM but
wouldn't go near our movement because they despise such sloppies as Ms
Ho or her protégée "Sam" Burcher.
The
zero-defects approach of, for instance, the Union of Concerned
Scientists is not a discipline Ho, Cummins, etc are willing to
undergo. One effect is that the UCS GM-experts (Margaret Mellon
Ph.D J.D & Jane Rissler Ph.D) refuse to have much to do with most
anti-GM activists. This awful fragmentation is a severe handicap
for the main task of bringing GM under control.
I for
one am sick & tired of this warped scene. When UCS founder
Henry Kendall showed the
way to zero-defects criticism of nuclear reactors, no usurper
like Ho tried to set herself up as a comparable expert. Then
arose prototypical reckless errormongers e.g Helen Caldicott
M.B, Rosalie Bertell, and a few others. Surrounded by
buffer-zones of wimps, these harpies plunge on recklessly with
error-strewn utterances that would repel any careful scientist who
took them as representative of the scientific criticisms of nuclear
weapons & nuclear power.
In my
country the media have presented as experts on GM unqualified
PowerHarpies who are unable to discuss GM - some unaware
of the difference between a protein and a nucleic acid. Thus
sexist politics overpowers the fine Kendall tradition.
RM
