The role of science and non-science in the GMO debate: a critical examination of the GM wheat debate in the UK

Over the past two decades the discussion of knowledge production and knowledge systems has put into question the reliability of science. Various epistemological and ontological positions have emerged offering alternative perspectives on how knowledge is created, how it is organized, what knowledge types exist, and how various knowledge types interact. The topic of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is one arena in which many claims regarding scientific knowledge and the scientific process are presented and questioned. Some claim the attack on GMOs is also an attack on science. For the past two decades, GMOs have been one of the most controversial topics in the public arena. GMOs were introduced to the market in 1994 with the genetically modified Flavr Savr tomato. Many are fundamentally opposed to the use of GMOs while others believe it may be a solution to many environmental and social problems. The various opinions regarding GMOs were once again brought to the forefront with the GM wheat trial in the spring of 2012 in the United Kingdom. The public debate was mainly between the Rothamsted Research Institute, which developed the GM wheat trail and an anti-GMO environmental organization Take the Flour Back. This paper begins with a review of literature on science and formulates a framework for defining science and non-science as knowledge systems. The paper then asks: What type of claims are scientists and the activists making in the wheat trial debate? Which arguments fall within or outside the realm of science? The study utilizes the method of content analysis and examines open letters between the two parties that were published in newspapers and were available online. The paper argues that paradoxically scientists who support the GM wheat trail pose arguments that are mainly outside the realm of science.