The nature of the argument

30 November 2008 ECOLOGIST

www.theecologist.org
ECOLOGIST INVESTIGATES

A Genetically Modified Future?

Can you believe what you read in the newspapers? GM proponents say the debate must be based on the science but, says Prof Guy Cook , the language of the argument betrays a pulpit prejudice that ignores the evidence

he language of the GM debate is nearly as complex as the science. Five years ago I published a book analysing the way people use words to make their case when arguing about genetically modifi ed food. It was based on the fi ndings of two research projects in

which I and my research team interviewed ‘major players’ in the debate (scientists, biotech companies, politicians and campaigners), collected a half-million-word database of newspaper articles, and conducted focus-group discussions to see how members of the public really reacted to the arguments – rather than how those involved in the debate imagined they did. Some fi ndings were rather surprising. While both sides agreed that, in the words of then Prime Minister Tony Blair, ‘it is important for the whole debate that it is conducted on the basis of the scientifi c evidence, not on the basis of prejudice’ (as though everything outside ‘science’ were ‘prejudice’), the use of language was anything but rational and scientifi c. Everywhere, proponents of GM smeared their opponents by associating them in highly emotional language with the worst kinds of mindless extremism. In 2002, Blair talked of ‘us’ (a favourite pronoun by which he apparently meant the British people) ‘being overrun by protesters and pressure groups who use emotion to drive our reason’, as though those who disagreed with him were somehow not British (‘them’ not ‘us’), and emphasising his point by using a word (‘overrun’) that linguistic analysis can show occurs almost exclusively with vermin or enemy armies. There is also a tremendous irony in using highly emotive alliterative rhetoric (‘protesters and pressure groups’) to argue for ‘reason’ over ‘emotion’. A year later, Lord May, then president of the Royal Society, made a speech in which he equated the beliefs of the organic movement with those of Hitler, Mao, the Taliban and Creationism, which is based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. There was also frequent argument on the pro-GM side by the most unscientifi c strategy of conveniently selecting evidence to suit their point, rather than seeking counter examples as good science should do, with regular references to the historical benefi ts of new technology – vaccination, antibiotics, dentistry, lightening conductors – but never any mention of harmful technologies such as nuclear weapons or thalidomide. Most underhand of all, given the concerns of that time (and this), opponents of GM were frequently equated with ‘terrorists’. In the words of one scientist we interviewed: ‘You got terrorists come along and trashing it... you know, in the 1940s they burned books, and now they tear up plants’. The pro-GM News International press even suggested that plants could be genetically engineered to detect terrorist plots! ‘Plants may warn of bio-terror’ was a 2003 headline in The Times – though the key words here seem to

be ‘may warn’, making this one of the many promises of GM benefi ts that never happened – like the ‘golden rice’ that was supposed to tackle child vitamin-A defi ciency and blindness. In short, while opponents were regularly accused of hysteria, hyperbole and lack of scientifi c rigour, it was the pro-GM arguments that regularly exhibited these qualities, with minor players, such as the rank-and-fi le researcher quoted above, picking up – sometimes almost word-forword – the arguments of bigger players such as Tony Blair, Lord May and the pro-GM press. Unlike them, I am not pulling these examples selectively out of a hat to suit my case. Our projects exhaustively demonstrated such uses of language as frequent and recurrent patterns in pro-GM arguments. Perhaps our most telling fi nding concerned the infamous phrase ‘Frankenstein foods’. This was indeed, as claimed by the GM lobby, used very frequently – but not so often by their opponents. Instead it occurred far more frequently in the discourse of the pro-GM lobby, anxious to stereotype all arguments against them as ill-informed, tabloid-inspired hysteria. It was a convenient strategy for dodging, rather than engaging in, rational debate.

Reason over emotion? But all this refers to a debate that took place more than fi ve years ago – a very, very long time in politics, if not in the natural history of plants. We are told the new debate is different and involves different issues; so while opponents, locked in their Luddite obstinacy, have not moved on, proponents of GM, being open-minded, rational and caring, have new arguments on their side. This is because the world situation is apparently radically changed. Today we have food shortages and a burgeoning world population, whereas before... This time around, the effects of GM on environment and health will also perhaps be different – surely a unique development in causality for the natural sciences. In the words of Sir Bob Geldof, an adamant champion of GM (indeed, a self-professed ‘big GM guy’) and of reason over emotion: ‘the media agenda is rooted in an argument from 12 years ago. They are not up to speed on the conditions on the continent of Africa, and they really need to be’. Or in the alliterative rhetoric of The Times earlier this year: ‘The world has moved on. Food is no longer frivolous’. So things have ‘changed’ and we have, in addition, new faces on the scene: a new British Prime Minister (less given to, or perhaps just less successful at, clever rhetoric than his predecessor), a new president of the EU Commission, a new Pope, and soon a new US president. These are clearly radically different times, when we could, as many are saying, look again at the arguments for and against GM. We could also, given the irrational fl avour of the debate last time around, re-examine those arguments in a calmer and less emotive way. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what is

www.theecologist.org ECOLOGIST November 2008 31