Sunday, April 26, 2015

View of Genetically Modified Crops From Science and Food Policy


With a growing population and climate change, the world's agricultural sector is being stressed to the point where a single crop failure can cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people. With so many lives at stake the pressure of finding a suitable solution could not be greater. Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO’s) could increase yield, increase nutrition, and reduce dependence on human intervention in all sections of the world's agriculture. The problem is people do not trust the government or corporations with the research and regulation, yet the public can not fully understand the scientific research on their own. What the world needs is a bridge between the scientific facts and public opinion so that the average person can understand that GMO’s are harmless and revolutionary. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses dense scientific language, thorough research, heavy use of jargon and a scientific method approach while the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." uses persuasive language, coherent data, understandable words and a clear overall logical arc. The differences in the two rhetorical strategies are in direct relation to who the target audience is, which compromises the ability of public policy to accurately reflect scientific findings. Consequently, a misunderstanding in public opinion arises from a lack of communication in science and public policy.

Different types of language are used in the articles in order to fit into their specific rhetorical contexts of scientific and public policy. These language styles play a major role in making the articles understandable, significant, and creditable to their own specific audiences. Conventional scientific research papers use dense, matter of fact language based on brute facts. The scientists who read the articles are only interested in the factual side of the arguments. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses a very high level of language to best express the findings of the research to their fellow scientist audience. In order to understand why the scientific article uses such a high level of language one must understand the target audience is capable of deciphering and expanding on the findings in the article. On the other hand, the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." is not as high a level of writing, as it is not intended for scientists. This article is discussing the topic of public opinion, surveys, and laws which is much more familiar to average person than a scientific article, even though average people are not the intended audience. The food policy article still uses some high level writing as it is a scholarly article, yet the average person who is not a scholar would have a much easier time reading it over the scientific article. The intended audience for the Food policy article are people who would fit into categories of food policy, public policy, or even environmental toxicology. In order to appeal to this interesting group the article needs a little of the dense scientific of writing for the environmental toxicologists, but also some persuasive language, logic and survey findings for the public policy. The food policy article takes the public policy side of its argument and uses persuasive language just like policy makers would. Differences in the scientific and public policy style of writing and their use of language relates directly to who their target audience is. In order to be effective the two articles must appeal to their audience by using either dense, high style for scientists, or persuasive, more user friendly style for policy makers. These rhetorical differences limit the amount of communication possible between disciplines, making it more difficult for the policy makers to correctly reflect scientific findings.

In scientific articles and public policy articles alike, research and data are the backbone for every argument. The data that is used is what provides the force behind each argument and helps persuade the audience. Even though both articles rely on research and data, the type of data they present is vastly different. The scientific article presents data in a manner of stating the findings of their research, for example “The extensive testing on nontarget plant-feeding insects and beneficial species that has accompanied the long-term and wide-scale use of Bt plants has not detected significant adverse effects.” This manner of presenting data and the findings of the research in combination with citing other scientific research articles is very effective in informing the scientific audience because it gets directly to the point. The data that is given in the scientific article is to be used or compared to once the audience has conducted their own research. On the other hand, the food policy article uses understandable data in the persuasion of their audience, for example “The majority of the respondents (74%) favour labelling of genetically modified foods”. In addition the article references many other public surveys and articles along with statements from the EPA (Environmental protection agency) in order to gain credibility with the readers. In each section of the food policy article there is some form of data, most of the time percentages or bulleted lists. These groups of data are easy to understand and decipher, considering at some point in time that same data will be presented to the public. These differences in data type and presentation show who the target audience of the articles are and the eventual use of the data. The scientific article presents their data in a matter of fact, straightforward way while the food policy article uses persuasion and easy to understand data. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” is providing their research to other scientists for the use in further research, while the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." is providing their data to other policy makers with the intention of effecting the public with it in the near future.

Terms used in each article are very specific to their area of expertise, and limit the amount of adequate communication across the disciplines. The scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” uses a lot of jargon that only scientists could understand. Great deals of prior knowledge are required to understand the logic of the scientists in their study:
“PIs are generally benign to natural enemies when expressed in GM plants or fed to prey in artificial diets. However, cowpea trypsin inhibitor (CpTI)-injected tomato moth caterpillars (Lacanobia oleracea) given to the predator Podisus maculiventris resulted in reduced nymph growth and adult female weights, but experiments with the same insects fed CpTI potatoes showed no negative effects on the predator (4).”
This amount of heavy scientific terms is to be expected since the article was not written for the general public, but for other scientists who would be capable of understanding and furthering the research. The use of the scientific terms allows very accurate communication between the authors and the audience, which is very necessary in science. On the contrary the food policy article uses very little to no jargon or unrecognizable words because the material they are discussing is more popularly known. The terms that the food policy article uses are terms that are specific to policy making. These policy making terms are not as specific or difficult to understand for the general public because by definition policy making is meant to influence the public. In order for the public to gain the correct view of GMO’s, public policy must be able to understand and convey the scientific findings in a way that is understandable yet accurate.

Each article takes a much different style of organization and argument structure than the other, which is based on who the article is trying to influence. The scientific article dives head first into the dense scientific research with no introduction or definition section to guide uneducated readers. This is understandable because no person who is not in the scientific field will be reading and trying to understand the paper. The scientific article skips from paragraph to paragraph, each explaining a different organisms reaction to GMO’s. Each of the sections seems very separate from the other with little transition sentences or overall logical arc. The food policy article on the other hand does follow a clear overall logical arc. The beginning of the paper has a definition and overview section that helps readers establish a small amount of background knowledge before reading the paper. For example the article gives the definition “‘Biotechnology is the application of scientific and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services’”. After the introductions the paper follows a persuasive style of approach with some background, evidence, then persuasive paragraph that uses logical appeals. This style of approach is effective in convincing the policy making audience that the authors argument is valid and correct. The two styles of organization are to be expected in their particular fields, yet they are very different and do not mix well together. The cooperation between the two argument styles is critical to the development of public policies ability to effectively and accurately reflect scientific findings to the public.

The ability to grow a higher quality and quantity of crops to feed the world is a opportunity that humanity can not pass up. Even though people accept almost all new technologies without hesitation, GMO’s meet surprisingly intense resistance. GMO’s are a very controversial topic that requires heavy research and convincing of the public that they are safe. Public belief of GMO safety will only be capable if they are presented understandable data from a trustable source that is reinforced with scientific research. The understanding of the scientific article “Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for Insect Resistance on Nontarget Organisms” and the food policy article "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View." will allow us to close the gap between important research and the public opinion of the influential new technology. If public policy is able to get past the rhetorical differences and understand the science article, they will be able to correctly influence the public. Once the public is presented with the proper information about GMO’s and their influence on crops, we will be able to use their capabilities to increase agriculture. With the right balance of science and public policy the world can understand and use the powerful ability of GMO’s to help humanities agricultural needs.


Sources -
O'Callaghan, Maureen. "EFFECTS OF PLANTS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOR INSECT RESISTANCE ON NONTARGET ORGANISMS." ENTOMOLOGY 50 (2005). Annual Reviews. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130352>.

Barling, David. "The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View."Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 7.2. ScienceDirect. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668999000095>.

Curtis, K.R., McCluskey, J.J., & Wahl, T.I. (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food products in the developing world. AgBioForum,7(1&2), 70-75. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Asen, Robert. "Rhetoric Society of America | Rhetoric and Public Policy." Rhetoric Society of America | Rhetoric and Public Policy. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://rhetoricsociety.org/aws/RSA/pt/sd/news_article/58948/_blank/layout_details/false>.

"Guide for Authors | Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology." Elsevier. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://www.elsevier.com/journals/environmental-toxicology-and-pharmacology/1382-6689/guide-for-authors#14000>.

Nelson, C. H. "Risk Perception, Behavior, and Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Organisms: Toward Understanding American and European Public Reaction." American Behavioral Scientist (2001): 1371-388. Sage Journals. Web. 16 Apr. 2015. <http://abs.sagepub.com/content/44/8/1371.full.pdf html>

No comments:

Post a Comment