'executive director' Max urges readers to "Debate the science not the values".

O.K. Max, will your 'innovative environmentalists' call upon their 'science' to explain why it is that whilst there is sufficient food produced each year to feed the world population, untold millions of our fellow human beings suffer from mal-nutrition, starvation and premature death, whilst millions of tons of fish catch not required by "The Market" is dumped back into the sea, Australian fruit producers are forced to rip out their healthy and productive fruit trees, grape vines etc and surplus milk is poured down drains, rather than be distributed to "The Poor", "The Dis-advantaged","Those less well off" and so on.

Your 'science' has also imposed upon defenceless children, women and their menfolk, Napalm, landmines, toxic waste on a grand scale, cluster bombs and 'depleted' uranium!

Unfortunately for them, the innocent victims of the above products of 'science' are denied the (ideological) benefits of 'informed choice'!

Max Reese's article highlights the difficulties of rational debate when strong values are involved. I am not so naive to argue that debate or science can be value free, but I do think it a goal that we should pursue.
How enlightening it might be if we had two separate debates: a values debate and a science debate.
We might decide on values that it be more important to control monopoly and avoid potential genetic disaster than to develop the agricultural means to feed earth's population.
On the scientific side of the debate we could ask that all arguments be supported by sound research in peer reviewed journals.
Of course the two debates would interact and confuse the issues, but presently it seems that value and scientific arguments are interwoven so much that rational decision is remote.

Well, rojo, as far as I know, the Terminator technology has a moratorium on it, however the technology will always be there as ideas tend to hang around, funny that. It's not difficult to get a good ol' scare campaign going on just about anything scientific, whether that campaign uses actual facts or not.

Just take a look at Sowat up there. Nothing in that post has anything to do with GM crops, but it doesn't stop him/her from commenting and spreading scary negative visions of science turned monster. I think Sowat is extremely confused here because agricultural science has also brought us that surplus food and milk that is wasted or not fed to the hungry masses. It's not science's fault that they are starving, thats politics, it always has been. But when discussing science boogeymen, always remember that it was also science that brought you a world that is free from the ravages of Polio, Smallpox and reduced incidences of TB and vector borne diseases like malaria. It has also brought you televison, computers, mobile phones, antibiotics and an increased lifespan and quality of life due to greater nutrition and medical science.

Science has also brought us devastating military technology, it's true, but all these things don't just happen in a vacuum, they happen and are used because there is always a need for them. In the case of military technology, it's always a political need. So, before anyone wants to have a rant against science generally, have think about whether you want to do it over the internet, because I think the irony would be overwhelming.

Will the world starving want our crops?
We grow a lot of wheat, which is where this discussion is. Our market will not suffer for some years, with or without GM wheat. Some advantage I believe comes from the fact that we DON'T grow GM wheat.
Whether that means any GM crop I suspect relies on, we eat wheat, not cotton.
Most of the worlds population eat rice, we cannot afford to grow rice even if the market is growing.
I'm neither scientist nor farmer but I do know of the reluctance aussie farmers have for innovation.
Non till is still not universally accepted. Western Land of NSW has laws to say a crop will only be allowed when six inches of trash is on the paddock, in SA some still burn stubble.
No one should be able today to do that. If farmers want to "get science" start by having an ag science education.
In the mean time stop doing as grandpa did, the "science" of improving crop yields is out there without filling US chemical company's pockets and the ecology will be better for it.
The article is spin, probably paid for by said US chemical companies.
fluff

Fluff: "I'm neither scientist nor farmer but I do know of the reluctance aussie farmers have for innovation."

I would suggest that even then you don't much about farmers or their supposed "reluctance for innovation". Just take a look at the GRDC website: http://www.grdc.com.au/ and then tell us with straight face that farmers are relucant for innovation. Farmers fund the GRDC and similar Research Organisations around the country (eg.CRDC, HRDC, GWRDC).

Or even some press stories like,
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41892/story.htm
describe an uptake of at least 60% of no-till methods, and that number is increasing.

There are more crops than wheat in this country: legumes, pulses, oilseeds, lupins, sorghum and on and on. GM has the potential to vastly increase our yield and decrease our reliance on chemical treatments to maintain existing yields. The time of reliance on chemical treatments is coming to a close and I for one am glad for it. But to maintain the security of our crops, we need replacement technologies and GM is one of those most promising, market acceptance and scare campaigns not withstanding.

As for the comment of "Will the world starving want our crops?", are you serious? Go without food for 5 days and then see if you can refuse a bowl of cornflakes made from GM corn.

"I think Sowat is extremely confused here because agricultural science has also brought us that surplus food and milk that is wasted or not fed to the hungry masses. It's not science's fault that they are starving, thats politics, it always has been."

Aw Bugsy, can you not see the overwheming irony of your argument here?
Why do you think 'executive director' Max urges us all to 'debate the science not the values', whilst at the same time inviting us to 'join the innovative environmentalists who VALUE science over ideology'?!

How well qualified are you to 'debate' the science of genetic engineering? Last I looked there were still plenty of scientists urging the use of the precautionary principle when it comes to genetically engineering food crops for human or animal consumption.

The 'ideology' of GE is that 'it'll be good for us (ie,'every body') - an ideological assertion if ever I've heard one ... particularly when it eminates from the corporate hq's of the world's most powerful and greedy pharmachuetical corporations. Moreover, to assert that science has brought us a world that is free from the ravages of Polio, Smallpox and reduced incidences of TB and vector borne diseases like malaria is simply untrue, including in parts of the so-called 'developed' or 'advanced' societies ...sorry, ECONOMIES!

Modern-day 'science' largely underpins the now global(ised) mode of Capitalist social production and re-production. The 'ethics' of this pernicious system is 'beggar thy neighbour'. That is why 'executive director' Max wants us all to focus on the 'science' and not the values.