Paul K here
Yesterday in the UK a group of Greenpeace protesters who had destroyed a
field test of GM maize were found not guilty of criminal damage. The
protesters had argued in effect that their action was in the public
interest in preventing possible harm. (The spread of GM pollen from the
research plot to adjacent fields). It was a kind of self defence argument
and the jury accepted it.
The jury's response to the case reinforces the perception of a deep seated
public distrust of GM in the UK. The taco shells type of incident (as
described) does nothing to dispel such distrust. As an engineer I am
fearful of an anti-science view taking hold but if industry and government
are lax enough to permit novel, unlicensed bio-products onto the market I
can undestand why the general public wonder who to trust to protect their
interests.
If the need is great we tend to take greater risks. The smaller the reward
the likelier we are to be cautious. If, in the case of GM, consumers can
see no reward to themselves but only to the suppliers then it is extremely
rational for them to take no risk whatsoever. (why cross a road in a thick
fog to pick up a penny).
(I have no clear view on GM myself, the fog is too thick)
Trust, risk and reward seem to be deeply linked in this issue.
If this is straying too far from EE we might consider the ethical
ramifications of "precautionary self-defence".
regards Paul K
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|