Abstract
The paper attempts to accommodate the conflict between scientific and public opinions on genetic engineering. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are widely associated with risk in the contexts of agriculture, biodiversity, environmental policies, and food safety. Contrary to the public opinion, scientists generally agree that there is no scientific evidence proving that genetic modification per se poses greater risks than conventional crops. But scientific evidence is not always the best explanation for the complexity behind GMOs and risk perception. These issues are complex because the relevant evidence is mixed up with values that go beyond scientific considerations. The gap between science and the public opinion about genetic engineering has a proper theoretical basis: the theory of risk society explains the difference between techno-scientific and social rationality. However, this article questions the logic of compartmentalizing rationality. Suggestions are offered concerning a better integration of scientific evidence with GMO laws and politics.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
