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: 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