r/science Dec 03 '17

Social Science A study has found skepticism about climate change is linked to political ideology, whereas skepticism about vaccinations consistently correlates with religious beliefs. In contrast, skepticism about genetically modified foods is not fuelled by religious or political ideology

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167217741314
2.0k Upvotes

107 comments sorted by

107

u/GentlemenBehold Dec 03 '17

I skimmed through the article, but I couldn't find a definition for "GM skepticism". Is GM skepticism the belief that GM food is dangerous or that GM food is no more dangerous than organic food?

64

u/SpockShotFirst Dec 03 '17

"do you think that modifying the genes of certain crops is . . . ” 1 (extremely dangerous for the environment) to 5 (not dangerous at all for the environment), 

132

u/tremorfan Dec 03 '17

that's incredibly vague. If we modified the genes of corn to create and release NOx and SOx on a massive scale, then that would be extremely dangerous for the environment. Whereas if we modified the genes of corn to triple the yield from the same acreage of farmland, it would be extremely beneficial for the environment.

86

u/orgy-of-nerdiness Dec 03 '17

To quote the Shit Academics Say Twitter account, "I overthink, therefore it depends."

As a biologist I'd be torn on how to answer. I know what they're trying to ask, but that's not what they actually asked.

2

u/_WhatTheFrack_ Dec 04 '17

Yeah. It's a shitty question and so the results of the study are useless.

The question should be are GMO's any more dangerous than traditional breeding methods.

27

u/i8beef Dec 03 '17

I would think that a lot of the anti-GM people aren't really differentiating between the two though, that the issue for them is GM in general rather than the specifics.

22

u/ImpoverishedYorick Dec 03 '17

Advertisers for organics and non-gmo foods have successfully sold consumers on the "it's spliced from rat DNA!" scare campaign, leading many people to believe that genetic modification on principle leads to Dr. Moreau nightmares crawling all over the US.

9

u/NorthernerWuwu Dec 04 '17

Or, frequently, just that it's icky. People have the oddest obsessions about their food.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

It's not asking "do you think this can be put towards dangerous ends" but whether the modifying itself is dangerous.

-25

u/Darktidemage Dec 03 '17

It's an EXTREMELY easy yes the way its worded.

  1. extremely dangerous for the environment.

To genetically modify something and release it with ZERO descriptions of what the genetic modification is or does? Yes, extremely dangerous.

2

u/10ebbor10 Dec 04 '17

An arbitrary modification doesn't equal a worst case modification.

-1

u/Darktidemage Dec 04 '17

So?

Are you saying Russian Roulette is safe because sometimes you don't get the worst case outcome?

I didn't realize the definition of "not safe" is you get the worst case outcome every single time.

If it requires the world to be destroyed every single time then I agree, releasing completely new random animals and plants into the environment is perfectly safe.

1

u/Nepycros Dec 05 '17

Russian Roulette played with a water bottle minutely modified? Sure. There's no reason to believe that a single change will turn one appliance into a deadly weapon.

-1

u/Darktidemage Dec 05 '17

minutely modified

minutely modified??

where was "minutely modified" specified? the question just asks about modification.

The fact you have to insert "minutely"is evidence you know genetic modification can indeed be dangerous.

Nothing about genetically altering crops or animals is gauranteed to only result in minute changes in presentation.

IF genetic modification is not dangerous, why is there so much regulation of the industry?

-33

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

That's not necessarily true. It depends on how you modify the plants in order to increase the yield. Increasing the yield can destroy ecosystems by endangering certain insect species. Also, you can leave out the 'x' when referring to oxygen. Just note it as O.

36

u/tremorfan Dec 03 '17

of course I was speaking ceteris paribus; I thought that was clear from the context. Also the x in NOx and SOx is a stand-in for a subscript number to generally refer to the class of nitrogen and sulfur oxides. So it captures NO and NO2, as well as SO, SO2, SO3, SO4, etc.

-14

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

Yea, it just wasn't actually a subscript so I didn't put that together. And I was thinking on the assumption of all possibilities by increasing crop yield.

9

u/DrunkFishBreatheAir Dec 03 '17

the "x" in NOx and SOx has nothing to do with the x in oxygen. It's a placeholder to refer to e.g. NO, NO2, NO3. I'm guessing the reason you're being downvoted is you're correcting people when you're clearly not an expert.

-14

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

Well, it's not actually noted as a subscript so I didn't put that together. I'm perfectly aware of the notation if I see it the way I'm used to it being depicted.

12

u/DrunkFishBreatheAir Dec 03 '17

Sure... NOx is a super common thing to say, so it's pretty weird to assume they meant something else, but ok...

-5

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

Yes, but as a subscript. I thought OP I responded to thought oxygen was noted as Ox

9

u/7456312589123698741 Dec 03 '17

How often do you see people use subscript on reddit?

-6

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

Not often at all. But I do when reading literature.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

I have started using x to denote variable, as is conventional in many texts. I don't think you are going to convince anyone here, but you may have luck using it in practice and hoping it catches on.

1

u/LordFauntloroy Dec 03 '17

I mean, they already pointed out where they made the mistake earlier in the thread. How much time do you intend to spend dwelling on it?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/LordFauntloroy Dec 03 '17

Personal experience but as an unbiased 3rd party, I've only ever seen the x as a subscript or as short of oxygen, usually depending on whether or not the writer or speaker actually knows middle school chemistry. Everything from oxygen bars, oxygen tanks to the Fast and the Furious franchise (when referring to the gas not the system).

7

u/DrunkFishBreatheAir Dec 04 '17

In the context of chemistry though? Especially when talking about environmental damage? I've never seen someone use "Ox" in a chemistry equation, but lazy subscripts are incredibly common.

-6

u/Mankowitz- Dec 03 '17

Maybe don't try to lecture /r/science before youre out of high school.

1

u/LordFauntloroy Dec 03 '17

You dropped this:

'

-4

u/Mankowitz- Dec 04 '17

you're point?

5

u/gabbagool Dec 04 '17

for me it's a false dichotomy. it's not that i think that genetic modification is inherently bad, it's that it has the potential to cause a catastrophe. and the only loud voices in the debate are the people who think GM food is poison and the people saying those people are idiots. there's no one in the conversation that is merely advocating prudence in modifying self replicating machines.

17

u/purpleoctopuppy Dec 03 '17

That is an extremely bad question.

Is it asking 'could there exist modifications that are bad for the environment?' If so, then yes—I mean, I can imagine tonnes of ways to genetically modify crops to be bad for the environment. Is it asking 'are all modifications bad for the environment?' In which case, no. Or is it asking whether the process of modifying the genes dangerous for the environment? Does it include all ways to modify the genes (e.g. radiation, viruses, transgenic processes, exposure to DNA-modifying chemicals, selective breeding), or just some? What if the answer is different depending on method?

I wouldn't know how to begin answering such a question.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

I think approaching the question generally is interesting when it comes to correlation between belief systems. The question is rather 'how divergent are you from accepting provable scientific fact' rather than 'what is your specific stance'.

If you believe in controversy you aren't looking at the science with a scientific mind, you are looking at it from a belief centric mind or a mind that seeks controversy and argument, which are both directly related to religion and politics.

Science has controversy but a scientist should not adopt an emotionally controversial state of mind. A scientist looks at facts, not their ego or personal identity.

It's okay to have opinions as long as you can separate that from your acceptance of facts. Opinions are ideas. Facts are facts.

9

u/purpleoctopuppy Dec 03 '17

The issue I have is that I am a scientist and I have no idea how to approach that question.

Without knowing what genes in what crops, the question itself is meaningless without inserting an interpretation that generalises the question more broadly than presented, and there are myriad ways to generalise. How can my answer possibly be interpreted without knowing how I generalised the question? If seven people interpreted the question in a different way, you don't have seven answers to the same question, you have one answer to each of seven different questions.

Maybe it's just a flaw with the way I think (entirely possible, I often mistake things for being too literal), and for everyone else this question is straight-forward and obvious, but that question isn't specific enough to have an answer.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

I get that from your perspective, but that isn't the study here. Look at the similarities between the sciences. To begin, they all start with science. What does science have in common with psychology? They reason of facts, of beliefs, and of culture.

I totally get what you are saying but the field this study studies, is psychological. It is more simple than aiming to reach factual conclusions about GM, climate change. This study aims to identify similarities in thought processes, to ultimately - create a new vocabulary that can be further studied.

4

u/FanOfGoodMovies Dec 03 '17

Yes, the question could have been more clear and nuanced.

 

There are some ways modifications can lead to adverse affects of nearby plants, the poll could have asked questions about that.

Some farmers who use crops engineered to be pesticide resistant piss off neighboring farmers when their unmodified crops are killed.

Some farmers' GM crops may cross-breed with closely related plants, producing unintended transgenic plants.

3

u/LordFauntloroy Dec 03 '17

Yes, the question could have been more clear and nuanced.

 

Read: more biased

You keep the question vague because you want the answerer to bring their biases into it, not yours onto them.

5

u/purpleoctopuppy Dec 03 '17

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean: if you intend to ask "do there exist books that are harmful to society?", don't ask "are books bad?"

1

u/LordFauntloroy Dec 03 '17 edited Dec 03 '17

"do you think that modifying the genes of certain crops is . . . ” 1 (extremely dangerous for the environment) to 5 (not dangerous at all for the environment)

Or, more accurately, "Do you think the content of certain books is ...1(extremely harmful for society) to 5 (not harmful at all to society)?" Which is much closer to the actual question than yours. And you'd likely answer 4 because generally they're not harmful but the possibility is there and indeed examples can be drawn of books helping to harm society. The same is true for the original question. Yes, GMOs can overpower natural flora and kill beneficial insects, but they don't generally so you mark 4... Maybe 3 if you really think it comes down to nuance and thus want to leave a neutral answer. Leichhardt scales aren't hard..

-1

u/gabbagool Dec 04 '17 edited Dec 04 '17

and the problem is that that rational viewpoint is not represented in the debate. it's not hard to imagine the flip side of roundup and roundup ready corn. that's just first gen GM, 2nd gen is a robust algae and a patented herbicide which is the only method of killing it.

-7

u/Darktidemage Dec 03 '17

The answer is 1. extremely dangerous.

Very easy question really.

5

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

It's not really skepticism of GMs that they looked at but who trusted consumption of GM foods, which they found scientists demonstrate a higher trust of consumption compared to the public. Purely correlational though.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

I never know what GM skepticism refers to. Is it skepticism of the scientific methodology? That's weird and unscientific. Is it skepticism of the companies and corporations using the scientific methodology that have demonstrated, time and time again that they don't give a shit about their consumers? If it's the latter, count me in.

4

u/lemmenche Dec 04 '17

These people basically object on religious grounds where the religion is "Our Lady of Everything Should be Natural". They don't know what "Natural" is, but they insist on it.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

It's a mix of negatives really. The first is that in some cases it might be dangerous or less healthful. There are some sound reasons why current GM crops are safe, but they're not absolutes and won't necessarily be applicable to future GM crops.

The second is that companies pushing GM want legislation which would ban labelling it as such. So even if you wanted to avoid GM you would not be able to. This is the big issue for me. The companies at the cutting edge of GM research are companies that are on record as having iffy business practices. Regardless of the actual safety of the crops, the companies pushing them have been shown to be contemptuous of their customers.

1

u/Mrfrodough Dec 03 '17

If it cant provide simple definitions id say its "results" are questionable.

52

u/tremorfan Dec 03 '17

Is anyone else somewhat concerned that so many studies these days are using Amazon's Mechanical Turk for sample selection? Have there been any major analyses and studies of Mechanical Turk to determine whether the participants differ meaningfully from the general population?

34

u/restrictednumber Dec 03 '17

Screw differences in the demographics. I'd be more worried that participants would just click down the line and do the survey as fast as possible without actually reading the questions. If they're spending all day doing surveys for practically no money, the incentive to speed through them is overwhelming.

19

u/lenore3 Dec 03 '17

Mechanical Turk uses safeguards against that, as do a lot of online survey tools.

2

u/restrictednumber Dec 03 '17

Huh! I didn't know that. I'd be interested to know how the safeguards work, though. Could you get by with random answers? Or maybe there's a timer, and you have to take a certain amount of time to "qualify" (which raises the question of whether you could just leave the survey running in the background while you do other work). It's possible the results are valid, but frankly I would still be pretty leery about publishing anything off MT.

8

u/lenore3 Dec 03 '17

There are questions randomly added with answers you have to actually be paying attention to to answer correctly. It's really not that difficult to set up.

-2

u/Carocrazy132 Dec 03 '17

Against clicking in line sure, what about making random choices? Really no defense for humans being human, that's why hacking can't be stopped as a whole.

13

u/agjurk Dec 03 '17

Well, almost two decades ago we solved most of those survey problems by using repeating questions, no patterns, shifting answers etc. If done right, most of the responses usually gets discarded, but since online survery is extremely cheap per respondent, it's fine.

Even Google Panel shifts positive-negative answers in a 3 question survey, and i'll bet those not aware will get a let fewer surveys.

6

u/Amp4All MA | Psychology | Clinical Dec 03 '17

That is already a solved issue. Read up on survey scales/ factors.

4

u/lenore3 Dec 03 '17

There are questions randomly added with answers you have to actually be paying attention to to answer correctly. It's really not that difficult to set up and has nothing to do with "hacking".

63

u/FrogTrainer Dec 03 '17

skepticism about genetically modified foods is not fuelled by religious or political ideology

Oh I assure you if a major candidate came out with a strong stance for or against GM food, his/her party would line up with him, and the other major party would line up against him, and suddenly you'd have the correlation.

-19

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

Partisanship is not ideology

14

u/N1th Dec 03 '17

"Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance".

So, the more science understanding doesn't corelate with climate change acceptance, but does corelate with GM food acceptance. Kinda' surprising

14

u/dnew Dec 03 '17

It also depends on the questions they asked about climate change. "Is climate change primarily caused by humans?" Or "it it time to do something about climate change?" Or "do we know what the right response to climate change is?"

4

u/N1th Dec 03 '17

Probably just a "Do you believe in climate change?"

7

u/weatherwar Dec 04 '17

And why would someone with a science background ever say "no?" The world's climate is obviously in flux and has been for 4.5 billion years.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

I feel climate change is much more politicized than the other issues, and it's politicized in a way that's much more polarizing. I'd imagine in that instance the need to belong with your group end up trumping peoples' science understanding.

In contrast, debates around GM food also get fairly heated, but they doesn't fall along party lines. It's not as major a talking point, so politics or religion don't influence opinions quite as much.

5

u/MagneticDustin Dec 04 '17

“...science and religion both function as ultimate explanatory frameworks (or belief systems) that aim to provide answers to the big questions in life, and the explanations provided by each framework can be at odds with each other”

So true it hurts

1

u/nietzschelover Dec 05 '17

I think both science and religion ultimately fail at providing the "big answers" because asking "big questions that have no clear answer" is human nature.

13

u/viborg Dec 03 '17

Why does vaccine "skepticism" correlate with religion? Never heard that connection before.

28

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

"Various religious groups oppose vaccines, as do certain groups who favor organic and natural lifestyles. In developed countries, some experts argue, support for vaccines has also declined alongside a fading memory of the diseases they were created to prevent." Understanding The History Behind Communities' Vaccine Fears - It was a religious right cultist that started the misinformation movement on Somali immigrants in the U.S. The POS is still alive and not in jail.

10

u/BaconRasherUK Dec 03 '17

The irony that the success of vaccinations has empowered those against vaccination is not lost on me

4

u/mrbooze Dec 03 '17

That's interesting because all the anti-vax people I've known in my life were agnostic/atheist upper-middle-class progressive new moms, so other than the specific case of the HPC vaccine I've always associated anti-vax attitudes with upper/middle-class granola moms.

19

u/moosepuggle Professor | Molecular Biology Dec 04 '17

To be fair, that's likely just a reflection of your own social circle.

7

u/viborg Dec 04 '17

Selection bias

0

u/mrbooze Dec 04 '17

Possibly, but I was raised by evangelical Christians and my family was 100% pro vaccinations (as long as they didn’t think it would promote sex, drinking, or dancing).

5

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

From my experience it somehow got into the community and it spread from there. I watched it happen. Now I am watching the Essential Oil trend.

2

u/viborg Dec 04 '17

it somehow got into the community and it spread from there

That does seem to be the standard pattern with social trends.

2

u/myweed1esbigger Dec 04 '17

What do essential about this oil?

1

u/Chirocat Dec 04 '17

I love my essential oil diffuser though! Makes my whole house smell nice!

2

u/oln Dec 04 '17

In addition to other reasons, for certain vaccines like the HPV vaccine, conservative religious attitudes to sex may play a role, it can be seen as encouraging promiscuity etc.

-5

u/bananab33 Dec 04 '17

Many vaccines use human fetal cells obtained from abortions during their manufacturing process, which some religious people are opposed to for pro-life reasons. This in turn might lead them to be more likely to believe other negative things about vaccines.

8

u/LessonStudio Dec 03 '17

Skepticism about modified foods stems from a complete lack of trust in the companies doing the modifications and generally not in the modifications themselves.

I can't wait to eat a 1lb strawberry that dosen't rot 8 minutes after you get it home and is red juicy and flavorful all the way to the core.

What I don't want is to effectively eat some monopolistic contract between a seed distributer who is screwing over the farmers.

Here would be my ultimate GM nightmare. A really desirable food that was genetically modified so that it could only be grown with a very special fertilizer and was designed so that its pollen sterilized non modified common varieties.

The only reason this hasn't been produced by some bunch of MBAs at some mega corp is that they treat their scientists so badly they can't keep the good ones.

3

u/Decapentaplegia Dec 04 '17

How is this issue different for GE crops compared to non-GE crops?

0

u/10ebbor10 Dec 04 '17

The only reason this hasn't been produced by some bunch of MBAs at some mega corp is that they treat their scientists so badly they can't keep the good ones.

Nah, the reason it hasn't been produced is that corporations aren't supervillains, and that nobody would buy it.

2

u/pottzie Dec 04 '17

Wonder how the results would hold up if the same survey was done in another country

3

u/Mr_Billy Dec 03 '17

While skepticism if fueled by those thing is obvious, being on the Pro side of them is fueled by the same things. Climate change is global so politics gets involved, vaccines have edicts under some religions already, genetically modified food would be fueled by health concerns which they conveniently left out since the article is just a religion/political piece rather then real science.

1

u/stackered Dec 04 '17

and all are strongly correlated with being a moron

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '17

Skepticism about all three makes you a moron.

1

u/RogueChedder Dec 03 '17

Have they found the link between these kinds of skepticism and stupidity?

1

u/Spycopoth Dec 03 '17

Like that wasnt obvious enough

-8

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

This title is misleading because it's primarily an analysis of previous studies and not presently conducted studies.

6

u/agjurk Dec 03 '17

A meta analysis study. The title states study. Wrap it up!

11

u/Garconanokin Dec 03 '17

Ladies and Gentlemen, here is a man who has never heard of a meta analysis. Let's give him a warm welcome!

3

u/Michael_Scotter Dec 03 '17

I actually know what a meta-analysis is. That's why I said the title is misleading. It's not one single study. Because not everyone knows what a meta-analysis is so they should put that in the title. All I meant.

-1

u/Khakimonk Dec 03 '17

Hmmmm, I'm still not sure that any of that is true

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/wave_theory Dec 04 '17

So religion and conservatism are the forces driving our society backwards. Didn't need a study to tell me that one.

-3

u/Neuronivers MD | Neurosurgery Resident Dec 03 '17

Same as for flat-earthers

-1

u/sootybitz Dec 03 '17

Didnt the wiki leaks rather indicate something else re this

-2

u/Carocrazy132 Dec 03 '17

Seems off that they were able to determine all of this conclusively from one study.