The caliber of recent discourse regarding geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) has suffered from a lack of consensuson terminology, from the scarcity of evidence upon which toassess risk to health and to the environment, and from valuedifferences between proponents and opponents of GMOs. Towardsaddressing these issues, we present the thesis that GM should bedefined as the forcible insertion of DNA into a host genome,irrespective of the source of the DNA, and exclusive ofconventional or mutation breeding.Some defenders of the commercial use of GMOs have referred to thescientific work of GMO critics as ``junk science.'''' Such a claim isfalse and misleading, given that many papers critical of both theutility and safety of GMOs have been published in peer reviewedjournals by respected scientists. In contrast, there is a dearthof peer reviewed work to substantiate the frequently heardassertions of either safety or utility in GMOs. The polarity,which now characterizes much of the public discourse on GMOs,reflects not simply scientific disagreement, but alsodisagreement in underlying value assumptions. Value differencesstrongly affect the assessment of both benefit and harm fromGMOs.
Keywords biotechnology  genetic engineering  junk science  risk assessment  substantial equivalence
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1011321103091
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,827
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Letter From the Editor.[author unknown] - forthcoming - Eleutheria.
Collective Action and the Analysis of Risk.Paul B. Thompson - 1987 - Public Affairs Quarterly 1 (3):23-42.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Magic Bullet Criticism of Agricultural Biotechnology.Dane Scott - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):189-197.
Herbicide Resistant Sugar Beet – What is the Problem?Kathrine Hauge Madsen & Peter Sandøe - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):161-168.


Added to PP index

Total views
115 ( #89,407 of 2,432,727 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #294,374 of 2,432,727 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes