[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Biotechnology, demons, and sustainability



Ignacio:  your comments bring back fond memories of my comprehensive 
exams, about 20 years ago at ISU (arghh!), where I had a philosopher 
(Van Iten by name) on my examining committee.  I had taken a course 
from him, and was impressed with his reasoning ability, so asked him 
to serve on my exam committee.  What brings a smile to my face is the 
recollection of his first (and only) question during the exam:

"Is science objective?" 

to which I forthrightly (and self-righteously, as I recall) responded 
"YES", and then spent the next 20 minutes backing myself deeper and 
deeper into a corner in response to his probing questions.  

The only thing that saved me was the unexpectedly animated 
intervention of the other members of the examining committee, all of 
whom were agronomy/botany professors who were not nearly ready to 
hear that science was anything but objective.  If memory serves, I 
spent the next 20 minutes watching the slight and soft-spoken Van Iten 
handily dispatch all arguments to the contrary, leaving a group of 
significantly disgruntled faculty pondering the remote possibility 
that Science may indeed be something other than objective.

As for "right and wrong" - I have another friend, also a philosopher -
Hugh Lehman, recently retired, who used to come and speak in my Crops 
in Land Reclamation class about the ethics of reclamation.  He would 
agree with you that "right and wrong" are not just personal opinions 
but can be argued and tested analytically just like anything else.  
In the context of the present discussion, what is "right" or "wrong" 
would depend intrinsically on the *values* as well as the science that 
one brings to the discussion.  The values of some (not all) 
scientists allow *faith in science* to override, discount, and dismiss 
other considerations - and even, to be blind to other considerations.

It is the difference between "acceptance" (a scientific term based on 
risk assessment protocols) and "acceptability" (a values-based term 
reflecting an holistic assessment of not simply the science but other 
dimensions not contained in the accepted standard protocols).  The 
difference between acceptance and acceptability is what is 
confounding Monsanto and the scientific community that provided them 
with all the best and latest scientific supporting evidence.  The 
same conundrum featured prominently in dialogue on BeefToday and 
GRAZE-L about BSE and mad cow disease.  Ann
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX:  519 763-8933