A fuzzy line

We had a good discussion of the ethical and social issues involved in biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in my Molecular Biology class a week or two ago. When I teach this topic, I try to remain neutral and not inject my opinions into it too much--the students should come to their own conclusions and my job is to make sure they don't misrepresent the underlying science. But that causes a problem--when does remaining neutral involve misrepresenting the science? It's a tricky line to walk.

In the science classroom, we can't fall into the same error as many journalists, and present both sides as equally valid simply because there are two sides. This produces what Jon Tourney called the pseudosymmetry of scientific authority--the suggestion that both sides of a controversy are equally valid, even if 95% of the experts are actually on one side. The obvious place in the classroom where this cannot be done is in evolution and creationism. It is dishonest to teach both evolution and creationism as if both are equally valid. The science is overwhelming, the consensus is strong, and evolution-denial relies on misrepresenting evolution and science. The only proper way to present evolution denialism is to present their arguments, and then show why the scientific community has rejected them.

A similar problem arises with global warming. If we were teaching it 20 years ago, it would have been a good exercise to look at the scientific case for and against it. However, the science has gotten much stronger, and the deniers of global warming have begun to use typical denialist arguments. We are doing students a disservice if we pretend that both views are equally valid. Furthermore, we harm their ability to recognize real controversy. Although there is no real controversy over whether warming is occurring, or that humans have contributed to it, there is controversy about how severe it will be or exactly what its affects will be, or what is the best way to deal with it. Those issues would make for a good discussion, but we are harming students if we fail to distinguish between real controversies and contrived controversy.

This issues comes up in relation to GMOs. There are many objections to GMOs. Some are real, some are unlikely, and some are ultimately superstitious. Some risks that were a real possibility 20 years ago we now realize are very unlikely. It is not always easy to decide where the line is and where we should remain neutral and where we should take an editorial stance. The point at which science goes from cutting edge to established is fuzzy. I usually err on the side of being neutral. However, there are some objections to genetic technology that I think are invalid. I think some is even a form of superstition. I did take a stand against that in class a few weeks ago. In my next post, I will discuss those objections.