The final decision on the biotechnology debate at the Economist

After the total votes were added up in the big GMO debate, the Economist scores it 62% against biotechnology, 38% for biotechnology. They also explain that there was a huge turnout and that there was a lot of active campaigning for particular views.

The voting has shifted dramatically during this debate, starting out heavily in favour of the motion, swinging strongly in the other direction (seemingly in response to an organised campaign by anti-GM activists), and then swinging back towards the middle. But in the end the opponents of biotechnology—or, more precisely, the opponents of genetic modification in its current form—carried the day with 62% of the votes, against 38% for supporters of the motion.

So, one strike against genetically modified organisms, one big win for pharyngulation. These online polls are a terrible way to resolve debates, since all it takes is a few big sites charging in to advocate a view to greatly skew the results. The Economist seems to fail to grasp that concept even now, unfortunately.

What about these anti-GM activists? I pointed out one example. It turns out that another bunch of them were at Crazy Mike's Sewer Pipe of Misinformation, where Mike Adams now gloats about his 'victory'. He's also got some wild conspiracy theories, and fascinating descriptions of you, fellow readers of Pharyngula.

Today's "scientism" followers (the cult worshippers who call themselves "science bloggers") don't value life, knowledge or truth. For some astonishing reason, they pick the most evil side of every issue. On the issue of GMOs, for example, they automatically side with Monsanto and DuPont, calling for more biotech Frankenseed interventions that threaten the very future of life on our planet.

Well, I think if you actually look at the discussions that went on here, you find a lot of opposition to corporate abuse of technology; there were many people who thought biotech was fine, but Monsanto…not so benevolent. You also found people who opposed genetically modified organisms, and the vote from this side was not monolithic at all.

On the issue of Big Pharma and the mass-drugging of world citizens with patented synthetic chemicals, the science bloggers of course side with the drug companies! Big Pharma and the FDA can do no wrong in their eyes, and the solution to health is, they say, found in prescribing more chemicals to more people!

If these people were living back in the 1950's, they would no doubt side with Big Tobacco, because the "science" at that time said cigarettes were actually good for you! The Journal of the American Medical Association, by the way, actually used to run full-page advertisements for cigarettes. And they were endorsed by doctors and scientists, too.

Actually, no, the science in the 1950s found cigarettes to be a serious risk factor. Tobacco companies funded biased research to argue otherwise, for the purpose of confusing legal and political interests. The scientific interests weren't fooled.

Gee, no wonder they keep losing all the legitimate polls and surveys. Does anyone still believe that modern medicine is working? Does anyone really think that the answer to the problems facing human civilization is to be found in more chemicals, more genetic alterations, more playing God with nature and more corporate control over our food, medicine, genes and ideas? (The science bloggers, by the way, also support corporate ownership of human genes, 20% of which are right now patented by corporations and universities. This is an affront to natural law and a crime against humanity...)

Science bloggers, by the way, do not actually represent science. They worship a cult called "scientism" that pushes a corporate agenda which seeks to concentrate power in the hands of the few while denying food, freedom and health to the people.

I favor corporate ownership of human genes? Wow, you learn something new and wrong every time you read Crazy Mike.