For many years people have been making the case there is a conservative war on science. I myself have written extensively about the former Harper government muzzling scientists, closing of research facilities and general lack of respect for evidence-based decision-making.
Recently, though, it is also becoming more common to see people arguing there is a progressive war on science. It will likely surprise many people that I don’t disagree with that, in a way.
First, let me be clear, I do not like the terminology “war on science.” It implies a concerted and broad effort to undermine science in general. Rather, there are fringe anti-science movements on either side of the political spectrum that eschew certain aspects of science that run counter to their ideology.
Unfortunately for Canada, the radical right somehow got control of the more mainstream conservative party, managed to get elected to government, then crushed the moderate elements within the party.
Fortunately, while in government, they were somewhat moderated by the will of voters and our other democratic institutions (e.g., the Supreme Court).
In any event, the conservative anti-science bent is mostly about science undermining religious dogma—i.e., biblical interpretations of the age of the earth, status of humans in some imagined biological hierarchy, the sanctity of human life etc.—or interfering with corporate profits—i.e., climate change denial.
When progressives go anti-science, it tends to be more about lack of trust generated by tampering with “nature.” When people are anti-vaccination, anti-genetically modifed (GM) food, anti-pipeline, pro-alternative medicine etc., chances are they are progressives.
We have yet to see the radical left gain control of a mainstream progressive party, but there are cases in which it has been successful in influencing mainstream issues. The most dramatic case in point is GM food. For example, NDP MP Murray Rankin’s anti-GM Motion M-480 garnered widespread support.
Fear of GM food is patent nonsense, but science is really losing the public relations battle on this one. The fact is, there is not a single molecule of food the vast majority of humans put in their mouths, which has not been genetically modified. It is perfectly safe and it is the only way we are going to feed the planet moving forward.
Of course, the anti-GM crowd is okay with old-fashioned genetic engineering such as splicing plants together or selective breeding of livestock; they just don’t like when it’s done at the DNA level in a laboratory, even though the end results are identical, albeit much faster.
Both conservative and progressive anti-science groups are just as irrational. And they both use the same sneaky tactics including cherry-picking data, citing debunked studies and discredited researchers, making vague references to supporting evidence that isn’t really, and listing people and organizations that support their cause regardless of whether or not they have any real credibility.
Ultimately, they are populist initiatives with no foundation in actual evidence. In the case of M-480, proponents cited polls that nine out of 10 Canadians wanted food labeled with GM information, but don’t reference the actual polls, inferring an anti-GM sentiment as opposed to a pro-labeling one.
They also make vague reference to a Health Canada report saying it “determined that Canadians want the government to act on GM labeling.” All that report said was that “consumers suggest: labeling genetically engineered or genetically modified ingredients in food products.” What consumers?
And that was just one of myriad findings from a series of roundtable discussions with “Canadian parents” held by then-minister of health Rona Ambrose from January to March 2014. Who were these people? How were they chosen?
I found an Ipsos-Reid poll from September 2015 that supports the 90 per cent claim, sort of. It found 88 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labeling of GM foods. What the anti-GM crowd doesn’t say is that only 71 per cent of people in the same poll were even aware of GM food, yet 88 per cent want labeling.
And while 88 per cent want labeling, 34 per cent are in favour of GM. There is some significant overlap there suggesting a lot of people are still going to buy it with or without labels. And I can almost guarantee that percentage is going to go way up when people are faced with a 47 per cent increase (Consumer Reports 2015) in their food bill to buy so-called “organic” (none of which would exist without genetic modification) foods.
Probably the most telling thing about the poll is that only 38 per cent of the people surveyed said they would definitely not eat a new non-browning apple (approved, but not yet in supermarkets). The anti-GM Canadian Biotechnology Action Network states this means “Canadians are also most likely to say no to eating” it, showing the organization’s bias. One could just as easily interpret that data to mean Canadians are more likely to say ‘yes’ to it because 20 per cent said they would eat it, 33 per cent were on the fence and nine per cent had no opinion.
Both the conservative and progressive anti-science movements have one thing in common. Although they present their positions as being based in evidence, they have nothing to do with reason whatsoever and everything to do with emotion.
Speaking of emotion, here is my emotional contribution to the subject: I hope we do get GM labeling to help me avoid making any purchase that in any way supports the irrational anti-GM movement. Bring on that non-browning apple.
