SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The University of Colorado Boulder has an article up about a paper [open, DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0520-3] [DX] published Monday in Nature Human Behavior which finds that U.S. adults:
who hold the most extreme views opposing genetically modified (GM) foods think they know most about GM food science, but actually know the least
The paper's key finding is that:
the more strongly people report being opposed to GM foods, the more knowledgeable they think they are on the topic, but the lower they score on an actual knowledge test.
Interestingly the authors found similar results applied to gene therapy, but were unable prove a similar conclusion when they tested against climate change denialism. This leads them to hypothesize that:
the climate change debate has become so politically polarized that people's attitudes depend more on which group they affiliate with than how much they know about the issue.
It might be instructive to run similar studies in a number of areas such as
Vaccinations
Nuclear Power
Homeopathy
...
Where would you like to see this study done next?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @12:34AM (2 children)
You are so right. Those evil middle easterners genetically modified (you know, selective breeding) wheat to create the horrible FrankenGrain we see today [wikipedia.org]. and those thrice-damned Meso-Americans did the same thing with corn [wikipedia.org].
What were they thinking? Yes, they wanted to destroy the world of course.
What's that? Selective breeding isn't genetic modification? Sorry, that dog won't hunt, as that's exactly what it is. Just compare a Grey wolf to a Schnauzer or a bulldog or a shi'tzu.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:51AM (1 child)
You're a moron, conflating slow knockout-style mutations with entire genes being copied between organisms.
If you weren't a moron, you'd say "oh but viral vectors for interspecies gene transcription exist", which is a mostly-flawed argument becaue a virus with a plant host isn't likely to leap species and certainly not kingdoms, so you'd never see eg. dinoflagellate phosphorescence genes in tobacco in nature. But humans have done it!
Now what happens when it's a smallpox, HIV, ebola, or influenza gene that Monsanto finds works great to discourage pests from potatoes? Do you think that gene would ever have evolved in potatoes without human intervention? (If you're such a moron as to think "yes" to that, please go read about "the pocketwatch on the mantle" and aleph degrees of infinity, and comeback if and only if you can grok these simplest of facts about probabilities and infinities.)
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:38AM
Apparently, my point went right over your head. I won't speculate as to why, but you might consider your own weak attempt at insult as applying to you.
I'll explain, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand, you warthog-faced buffoon:
Genetic modification isn't just CRISPR-style gene splicing. Any *purposeful* act to modify organisms via DNA manipulation (and selective breeding certainly counts there) creates GMO organisms.
Introducing "desirable" traits into organisms, whether that be through gene splicing (ala golden rice [wikipedia.org]) or through selective breeding are both examples of genetic modification.
As to whether or not any particular modification is safe and/or beneficial is specific to each instance of such activity.
Get it now? Or are your reading comprehension skills that poor?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr