Charges against critics of genetic engineering often take four general forms. But all of them, we argue, are unsupported by facts.
First, scientific and policy debates are not, as claimed, polarized in black and white, divided simply into two contending camps. Second, there is no genuine consensus within the scientific community about the safety and acceptability of innovations produced using GE. Third, allegations of costly overregulation presuppose that there is reliable and complete foreknowledge of benefits as well as any and all possible risks, but such scientific hubris should never be treated as an adequate substitute for systematic investigations. Fourth, common representations of GE as an incremental, innocuous innovation that poses no special risks and requires no special regulation is inconsistent with the biotechnology corporations’ insistence that GE is a radical innovation that deserves special protection and incentives.
One pivotal error underpins most misrepresentations. It is often implied that policy judgments about, for example, the regulation of GE can and should be based on, and only on, scientific considerations. This ignores a longstanding body of analysis that argues that science on its own can never determine policy decisions. Mountains of evidence show that regulatory policies have never been based solely on science. Nor could they be; as analytic philosophers like to say, you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.”
Authors
