GMO Africa

Stop this violence against science

I, and I’m sure most of you, detest the use of force to protest the use of new technologies. We’re all familiar with protestors storming coal plants; or staging protests against the building of nuclear plants, like it happened in Austria in 2001; or blocking airport runways to prevent “greenhouse gas-emitting” jets that activists charge with exacerbating global warming.

In the U.S., the term “eco-terrorism” is all too familiar. It was coined by law enforcement agencies to describe shadowy militant groups that occasionally raid and raze down homes that they charge have been built in environmentally unfriendly manner.

Lately, protests have turned to genetically modified (GM) crops. Protestors have invaded GM crops trial fields, destroying everything that they encounter. Their argument: GM crops pose health risks to humans and the environment.

Last week, for instance, in Brazil, protestors stormed and destroyed a nursery in which researchers were conducting trials of genetically modified maize.

In 2004, the BBC.com reported that hundreds of activists, led by a radical French farmer, Jose Bove, destroyed a GM maize crop plantation, ostensibly to “protect consumers against harmful foods.”

It’s quite worrying that violent acts directed at new scientific innovations, such as nuclear energy and crop genetic engineering, are on the upward rise? Science’s driven by empiricism, and the only way to challenge it is to invoke a scientifically plausible argument, not violence. Violence has no place in science. Scientists know this, but activists – most of whom happen to be non-scientists - who happen to be the fomenters of violence directed at science don’t seem to appreciate this fact. They take comfort in destroying what’s taken many years and great effort to build.

We all agree that any scientific innovation is greeted with pessimism and/or optimism. Take the case of GM crops. There are those who claim that they’re tools for multinational biotech companies such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont to colonize global food industry. Others argue, without scientific justification, that GM crops pose dangers to human health and the environment.

Then, there are others who think that GM crops are good for the society. In this category lies people like Clive James, the chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA); Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his efforts in increasing food supply in the world; Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at the Columbia School; and Dr. Ruth Oniang’o, a Professor of Food Science and Nutrition at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology in Kenya.

There’s nothing wrong with holding divergent, and sometimes opposing, views on GM crops, or any other technology. What ought to be condemned is the practice of engaging in violent acts by those opposed to new technologies.