fbpx Golden Rice, Frankenfood, and the torch-wielding mob | Page 10 | Science in the net

Golden Rice, Frankenfood, and the torch-wielding mob

Primary tabs

Read time: 1 min

Most scientists hate the term “Frankenfood” applied to genetically engineered (GE) crops. Activists certainly use it as an insult. But did those activists actually read Mary Shelley’s book?
Mary Shelley’s creature is not at first a monster of despicable evil; quite the contrary, he is agentile and sensitive creature condemned to solitude and neglect and chased everywhere he goes by bigoted mobs that dislike him only for aesthetic reasons, because he seems to them a monstrosity. Listen at the creature’s lament when, after secretly helping a family of poor farmers, he finally decides to reveal himself:
“The more I saw of them, the greater became my desire to claim their protection and kindness; my heart yearned to be known and loved by these amiable creatures; to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection, was the utmost limit of my ambition. I dared not think that they would turn from me with disdain and horror.” Continue reading on Sci-Phy

Follow the discussion on LinkedIn

 

Ariel Polandri (@ArielPoliandri) is Senior Post-doctoral Researcher in Stem Cell Disease Modelling at the Imperial College in London. 

Autori: 
Sezioni: 
GMO debate

prossimo articolo

Why science cannot prove the existence of God

The demonstration of God's existence on scientific and mathematical grounds is a topic that, after captivating thinkers like Anselm and Gödel, reappears in the recent book by Bolloré and Bonnassies. However, the book makes a completely inadequate use of science and falls into the logical error common to all arguments in support of so-called "intelligent design."

In the image: detail from *The Creation of Adam* by Michelangelo. Credits: Wikimedia Commons. License: public domain

The demonstration of God's existence on rational grounds is a subject tackled by intellectual giants, from Anselm of Canterbury to Gödel, including Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant. However, as is well known, these arguments are not conclusive. It is not surprising, then, that this old problem, evidently poorly posed, periodically resurfaces.