Journal or Publishing Institution: EMBO Reports
Study: https://web.archive.org/web/20180821150803/http://embor.embopress.org/content/19/4/e45954
Author(s): Pearce, W., Hartley, S., Helliwell, R. and O'Neill, L.
Article Type: Journal Publication
Record ID: 1850
Text: Since our article “Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing?” [1] was published, we received correspondence, both critical and supportive, but written in the same spirit we employed: attempting to build mutual understanding between diverse perspectives on the role of genome editing in agriculture and food production. In our article, we highlighted one strategy for building such understanding, reflecting on what Rayner describes as “uncomfortable knowledge” [2]: the knowledge that we all downplay when framing complex issues such as genome editing or food security. We presented NGOs’ knowledge regarding the political aspects of agricultural biotechnology and food security, which diverges from technical arguments about yield and economic value and is uncomfortable for some correspondents, such as Giovanni Tagliabue [3]. While we thank him for his comments, we would highlight the weaknesses in his technical arguments and his overall approach to this debate. Tagliabue’s response exhibits three strategies described by Rayner for excluding the uncomfortable knowledge that we presented in our paper: the denial of our key findings through non‐engagement, the dismissal of a single claim we make in the paper, and diversion away from the political issues around food security towards narrow, technical matters. Following Rayner [2], we argue that acknowledging the use of these strategies can help to build a bridge from what Rayner might describe as the “wicked problem” of food poverty towards identifying “clumsy solutions”…
Keywords: agricultural biotechnology, food security
Citation: Pearce, W., Hartley, S., Helliwell, R. and O’Neill, L., 2018. Reply to Tagliabue. EMBO Reports, 19(4), p.e45954.
