General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Yes, GMO's are great and here is why... [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)It is very typical of the anti-GMO crowd to cite these retracted and questioned studies. It is just like the anti-vaxxers and the Wakefield study. In spite of the fact the the science has been questioned as being bad, the anti-GMO crowd continue to cite them.
Plus, there is a huge amount of science supporting the safety of GMO, yet the anti-GMO crowd cherry pick only the questionable studies which support their claims. Whether deliberate or not -- I cannot look into their rationale -- this is very questionable.
That's not the way science works, my friend. When evaluating a scientific question, one must evaluate all the data and not select just that which supports ones position. A scientist must first, and above all, question their own hypotheses. I don't see that here, which to any scientist would be worrying.
I am educated in science (physics) but I am not an expert in GMO. So I have to look at this from the perspective of those scientists who are within that field. That's what scientists do. Another thing, if the evidence supported dangers of GMO, I would quickly discard my support for it. Alas, I do not see it. However, I must also consider the quality of the data in my evaluations. When a study has been retracted or questioned in the peer review process, that data should not be used to support an hypothesis.
Thank you again for the time and effort you put into this. I have enjoyed our dialog, in spite of our disagreement.
My best regards.