Benefits Of Genetically Modified Organisms Research Articles

An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation

The aim of the present study is to explore pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluations of the evidence and models and their positions on a socio-scientific topic, namely genetically modified organisms (GMOs), after evaluating them through Model Evidence Link (MEL) diagrams. The findings of this study show that the participants mostly constructed accurate evidence-model links. However, they mostly generated inaccurate relationships between the model and the evidence when the evidence had nothing to do with the model. The results also show that the participants mostly evaluated the model-evidence relationships at the descriptive and relational levels. The participants were able to construct accurate links; however, they could not critically evaluate the model-evidence links. Finally, although the participants read supportive, opposing and irrelevant evidence about the benefits of GMOs, and discussed them with their group mates, most of them still thought that GMOs are not beneficial to society. Furthermore, none of them stated the belief that GMOs are beneficial to society.

Peer Teaching Increases Knowledge and Changes Perceptions about Genetically Modified Crops in Non-Science Major Undergraduates.

We analyzed effects of peer teaching on non–science major undergraduates’ knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about genetically modified (GM) crops and their use in agriculture. Undergraduates enrolled in an introductory nonmajors biology course participated in a service-learning program (SLP) in which they acted as cross-age peer teachers to high school students, teaching about the role of genetics in crop improvement through traditional breeding and GM approaches. Using pre/postassessments, we found that undergraduates’ opinions shifted to favor the use of GM organisms (GMOs) in agriculture after SLP participation, rising from 46 to 97%. Perceptions about risks and benefits of GMOs also shifted from 43% stating that GMOs are harmful or suspect to no students describing GMOs in that way. Knowledge about GMOs became more accurate after SLP participation. There were significant correlations between students who had negative perceptions of GMOs and negative opinions or inaccurate knowledge about them. Students recognized the effect of peer teaching on their knowledge and perceptions, identifying the repeated peer teaching as an important factor in knowledge gain. Our results suggest students developed an informed opinion about the use of GMOs through first learning the science of genetic engineering and then teaching this information to younger students.

The anti-GMO advocacy: an institutionalist and systems-theoretic assessment

Purpose Public debates on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are strongly influenced by the nongovernmental organization (NGO)-led advocacy, most of which is harshly critical of genetic engineering. This advocacy has resulted in discourse failures marked by the disregard for the scientific consensus on the risks and benefits of GMOs. This paper aims to present a theoretical inquiry into this phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on American institutionalism and Niklas Luhmann social systems theory, the paper explains these discourse failures in terms of the problematic relationship between institutions and technology. Findings Clarence Ayres would likely see these discourse failures as a form of “institutional resistance” to the progress of science and technology. In contrast, Marc Tool’s social value principle stresses the importance of democratic legitimation and public acceptance of new technologies, while being sensitive to the possibility of ideologically biased discourses. It is argued that the institutionalist understanding of the interplay between democracy, science and technology would benefit from a better account of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of “complexity reduction”. Social implications The study shows that some NGOs are powerful enough to actively shape, if not manipulate, public attitudes and sentiments against GMOs. Originality/value The case of the anti-GMO advocacy calls for a new conceptualization of how democracy, science and technology fit together.

Rationalizing the GMO Debate: The Ordonomic Approach to Addressing Agricultural Myths.

The public discourse on the acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not only controversial, but also infused with highly emotional and moralizing rhetoric. Although the assessment of risks and benefits of GMOs must be a scientific exercise, many debates on this issue seem to remain impervious to scientific evidence. In many cases, the moral psychology attributes of the general public create incentives for both GMO opponents and proponents to pursue misleading public campaigns, which impede the comprehensive assessment of the full spectrum of the risks and benefits of GMOs. The ordonomic approach to economic ethics introduced in this research note is helpful for disentangling the socio-economic and moral components of the GMO debate by re- and deconstructing moral claims.

Chinese newspaper coverage of genetically modified organisms

BackgroundDebates persist around the world over the development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMO). News media has been shown to both reflect and influence public perceptions of health and science related debates, as well as policy development. To better understand the news coverage of GMOs in China, we analyzed the content of articles in two Chinese newspapers that relate to the development and promotion of genetically modified technologies and GMOs.MethodsSearching in the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Core Newspaper Database (CNKI-CND), we collected 77 articles, including news reports, comments and notes, published between January 2002 and August 2011 in two of the major Chinese newspapers: People’s Daily and Guangming Daily. We examined articles for perspectives that were discussed and/or mentioned regarding GMOs, the risks and benefits of GMOs, and the tone of news articles.ResultsThe newspaper articles reported on 29 different kinds of GMOs. Compared with the possible risks, the benefits of GMOs were much more frequently discussed in the articles. 48.1% of articles were largely supportive of the GM technology research and development programs and the adoption of GM cottons, while 51.9% of articles were neutral on the subject of GMOs. Risks associated with GMOs were mentioned in the newspaper articles, but none of the articles expressed negative tones in regards to GMOs.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the Chinese print media is largely supportive of GMOs. It also indicates that the print media describes the Chinese government as actively pursuing national GMO research and development programs and the promotion of GM cotton usage. So far, discussion of the risks associated with GMOs is minimal in the news reports. The media, scientists, and the government should work together to ensure that science communication is accurate and balanced.

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.

Genetically Modified Foods

ABSTRACT This study outlines the controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how it impacts North American based food service companies' marketing policies. Recent developments have made foods derived from GMOs a strategic marketing challenge for food service franchise and chain operations. Headlines such as “Why McDonalds Pulled Frankenfries from Menus” have unwittingly put restaurants on the frontline of the battle over foods made from GMOs (Martin, 2000). A survey method was used to explore food service operations' views regarding consumer acceptance of GMOs, right to know issues (labeling) and the benefits of GMOs, as well as food service companies' strategic response to this emerging technology. Findings indicate that food service establishments were generally concerned about customer opinions and tend to prefer government mandated labeling of GMOs. They also tend to feel that GMOs offer potential benefits to their industry and that customer concerns may fade over time.