The Ideology of Sound Science and Its Defense

Abstract

This chapter explores the construction and deployment of the “sound science” defense of GMOs: examining the way in which proponents of GMOs use the supremacy of science as a means to silence critiques of the technology. Whereas political constraints force antagonists of GMOs to resort to alternative, and in some respects innovative, rhetorical strategies in order to politicize the issue of GM, proponents of GMOs adopt a discourse of “sound science,” which professes itself as a neutral, objective mechanism to evaluate GMOs. By refusing to label products as containing GMOs, producers and manufacturers of the technology attempt to render the product invisible through a political and rhetorical strategy to “depoliticize” the debate over the technology. ¹

Abstract

At this juncture in the debate over GMOs, there is an emerging consensus that the science supporting the technique of genetic engineering is sound: the technology itself appears to cause little to no direct harm to humans, animals, or the environment. The focus of this chapter is the way in which the scientific evidence is used as a justification for policymaking. Advocates of GMOs argue that this “concession” demands that there be no regulation of the technology and a carte blanche to develop GM products. In short, proponents of GMOs adopt a “sound science” approach to regulating GMOs: without affirmative evidence of danger to humans, animals, or the environment, it is not the government’s place to make policy restricting the technology. The strategy is not to defend merely the science of GMOs, but it is a political and rhetorical strategy to “depoliticize” the debate over the technology. Thus, this chapter charts the way in which the narrative of “sound science” functions in the public sphere. First, the chapter focuses on the ideological projection of the “sound science” paradigm: how is sound science articulated as the defense of GMOs? The second part of the chapter analyzes the way in which advocates of the technology attempt to control the context of the debate. By analyzing the discursive strategies adopted by proponents of the technology, I present a framework wherein sound science is defended through efforts to control the public, control the science, and control the narrative. Although these attempts at control do not always succeed, it is worth charting the way in which they function to understand the underlying strategy of the proponents of GMOs.