Jan 1, 2022 01:02 AM
After his death, "SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN does an asinine hit job on E. O. Wilson"
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11504-...l#pid48224
Jerry Coyne: "Scientific American has hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist. It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology..."
'Woke' Scientific American goes anti-GMO
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/29/wok...-gmo-16027
INTRO: Scientific American's descent from respected publication to ideological tabloid is nearly complete. The magazine is now promoting anti-GMO activism under the guise of "social justice."
Last week I highlighted four disturbing trends in science journalism that are destroying the public's trust in mainstream academic and public health institutions. It's time to add a fifth bromide to the list: science publications that prize “social justice” activism over evidence-based analysis.
Scientific American may be the worst offender in this respect, publishing groundless opinion pieces such as “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” and “Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past.” Biologist Jerry Coyne and science writer Michael Shermer have taken apart both articles in great detail, but Scientific American hasn't stopped there. The magazine's coverage of crop biotechnology has tragically devolved into social justice foolishness as well.
On December 27th, SciAm published a story so ridiculous it could have been written by a Greenpeace activist: “How Biotech Crops Can Crash—and Still Never Fail.”
The story was a critique of the UN Food Systems Summit, which, the authors complained, “put biotechnology at center stage, although agroecological innovations offer greater promise for sustainability.” The article is little more than a rehash of bad arguments we recently confronted in GMOs a Tool of Colonialism? Debunking a Popular 'Social Justice' Myth. But given SciAm's status in science media and the importance of biotechnology to food production, we need to confront this tomfoolery as often as it appears. SciAm in quotes, followed by my commentary.
"At its base, GM crops are rooted in a colonial-capitalist model of agriculture based on theft of Indigenous land and on exploiting farmers’ and food workers’ labor, women’s bodies, Indigenous knowledge and the web of life itself."
There is no such thing as a “colonial-capitalist model of agriculture.” At its root, capitalism is simply people trading goods and services to their mutual benefit. Colonialism, in contrast, “involves the subjugation of one people to another.” These two concepts are mutually exclusive... (MORE - details)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-11504-...l#pid48224
Jerry Coyne: "Scientific American has hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist. It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology..."
'Woke' Scientific American goes anti-GMO
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/29/wok...-gmo-16027
INTRO: Scientific American's descent from respected publication to ideological tabloid is nearly complete. The magazine is now promoting anti-GMO activism under the guise of "social justice."
Last week I highlighted four disturbing trends in science journalism that are destroying the public's trust in mainstream academic and public health institutions. It's time to add a fifth bromide to the list: science publications that prize “social justice” activism over evidence-based analysis.
Scientific American may be the worst offender in this respect, publishing groundless opinion pieces such as “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” and “Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past.” Biologist Jerry Coyne and science writer Michael Shermer have taken apart both articles in great detail, but Scientific American hasn't stopped there. The magazine's coverage of crop biotechnology has tragically devolved into social justice foolishness as well.
On December 27th, SciAm published a story so ridiculous it could have been written by a Greenpeace activist: “How Biotech Crops Can Crash—and Still Never Fail.”
The story was a critique of the UN Food Systems Summit, which, the authors complained, “put biotechnology at center stage, although agroecological innovations offer greater promise for sustainability.” The article is little more than a rehash of bad arguments we recently confronted in GMOs a Tool of Colonialism? Debunking a Popular 'Social Justice' Myth. But given SciAm's status in science media and the importance of biotechnology to food production, we need to confront this tomfoolery as often as it appears. SciAm in quotes, followed by my commentary.
"At its base, GM crops are rooted in a colonial-capitalist model of agriculture based on theft of Indigenous land and on exploiting farmers’ and food workers’ labor, women’s bodies, Indigenous knowledge and the web of life itself."
There is no such thing as a “colonial-capitalist model of agriculture.” At its root, capitalism is simply people trading goods and services to their mutual benefit. Colonialism, in contrast, “involves the subjugation of one people to another.” These two concepts are mutually exclusive... (MORE - details)