Upstream or Down?
As much as we all wish that the way humanity treated science always resulted in crystal clear truths, our science also sits within a social structure, and can often be infiltrated by politics (among other things). Kristine Mattis, an interdisciplinary environmental scholar with a background in biology, earth system science, and policy, has written an article differentiating what she calls “upstream” scientists from “downstream.”
The scientists with money and prestige are largely upstream scientists. Upstream scientists are not threatened, discredited, defamed, and scrutinized the way downstream scientists are. Downstream scientists have to produce immaculate, indisputably rigorous research — and even when they do they are questioned by the ubiquitous industrial PR machine. Downstream scientists are not a large part of the community.
So what does this mean to the GMO argument?
For career purposes and in order to maintain ties to the larger community, scientists tend to support other scientists — especially the scientists who have the money and prestige. Research has shown that upstream scientists — such as biotechnologists, agricultural technicians, or any scientists who create technologies — carry far less concern for potential risks than do downstream scientists — such as public health practitioners, epidemiologists, and environmental toxicologists.
Upstream or Down? It influences the GMO topic, like it or not.
In other words, the pro-GMO camp is upstream, anti-GMO downstream. Ms. Mattis further dissects a recent Pew GMO poll that showed 88% of scientists – represented by members of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — believe that GMOs are safe.
It may be that the other 78% who agree about GMO safety may or may not have a great deal of knowledge about GMOs, but rather take the word of their esteemed colleagues. In fact, as Ralph Nader recently mentioned, three former presidents of AAAS have ties to Monsanto and/or the biotech industry. Upstream scientists who produce biotechnology and the AAAS are not unbiased sources of information, regardless of whether or not we wish they were.
And using the blanket word “scientist” doesn’t clarify the exact discipline each scientist works in, which can make a big difference in their knowledge on a particular subject. Indeed, a “downstream” scientist of the proper discipline will likely have much more knowledge on the GMO subject than an upstream scientist of a different discipline. Upstream or down? It influences the GMO topic, like it or not.
Click here to read this article in it’s entirety:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/GMO-Propaganda-and-the-Soc-by-Kristine-Mattis-Biotechnology_Food_Gmo_Health-151004-800.html
image from Wikimedia
