Thursday, June 23, 2011

There's a difference between political activism and science

"AgResearch stalls 'damaging' report," says Stuff.

Attempts to shut down a scientific report critical of AgResearch's practices at its genetic engineering laboratories have been revealed through the company's internal documents.

On reading further, we find that the report is written by a long-time anti-GE campaigner at the behest of GE Free New Zealand, and that AgResearch can recognise political propaganda when they see it and have been having some discussions about how best to counter it. Not a whole lot in there for a story, you'd think, but the intrepid reporter quite successfully manages to vaguely infer some kind of wrongdoing by AgResearch without actually specifying any. On one level you have to admire the skill that goes into concocting propaganda like that - but on another level, I figure it's probably not a good line to be in if you value your self-respect.

3 comments:

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What a pity a whole lot of universities around the world didn't take the same view of the climate alarmist scammers.

Anonymous said...

While the headline is a bit naff its a bit soon to judge whether the report has merit I would have thought? The connections between the parties does not automatically make the report bollocks. The GE debate is still a live issue whether you are happy to gobble up stuff I wouldn't touch or not.

Psycho Milt said...

The report may well have merit, I'm not qualified to judge. But a report by an activist working for a lobby group has to be seen as a political document first and foremost, and AgResearch obviously recognise that fact.