Those Opposed To Scientific Consensus Bolstered By 'Illusion of Knowledge' (edmontonjournal.com)

The Edmonton Journal reports: Recently, researchers asked more than 2,000 American and European adults their thoughts about genetically modified foods. They also asked them how much they thought they understood about GM foods, and a series of 15 true-false questions to test how much they actually knew about genetics and science in general. The researchers were interested in studying a perverse human phenomenon: People tend to be lousy judges of how much they know. Across four studies conducted in three countries -- the U.S., France and Germany -- the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods "display a lack of insight into how much they know." They know the least, but think they know the most. "The less people know," the authors conclude, "the more opposed they are to the scientific consensus."

Science communicators have made concerted efforts to educate the public with an eye to bringing their attitudes in line with the experts," they write in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. But people with an inflated sense of what they actually know -- and most in need of education -- are also the ones least likely to be open to new information.... Extreme views often come along with not appreciating the complexity of the subject -- "not realizing how much there is to know," said Philip Fernbach, lead author of the new study and a professor of marketing at the University of Colorado Boulder. "People who don't know very much think they know a lot, and that is the basis for their extreme views."
Slashdot reader Layzej links to Rational Wiki's article on "The Backfire Effect," to illustrate Fernbach's observation that "People double down on their 'counter-scientific consensus attitudes'.

"Epecially when people feel threatened or if they are being treated as if they are stupid."

Comments

I trust the actual experts

[jd]

I don't trust neonicotinoids because scientists were suppressed by corporations. Call me old-fashioned but I don't trust ignorance and I don't trust those who promote it. The experts were abused, trolled and hounded. That doesn't tell me the experts were right, but it sure as hell gives me cause for concern about the corporations. Particularly as the corporations prefer ignorance, trade secrets and suppression of data.

If we are to hold experts as different from non-experts, then I must regard scientists who do the leg-work as more credible than bean-counters and snotty executives.

In the case of GMO, the same holds true. I cannot be certain an expert will be right, but they're more likely to be right.

What do the experts say? Well, in Europe (where the experts are actually expert and therefore worth listening to), GMO is banned by scientific advice.

Why not American scientists? Well, let's take something that isn't controversial. Bleached chicken. We now know chlorinating chicken doesn't kill salmonella or other pathogens, all it does is stop any existing methods from detecting salmonella. Studies show American chicken is extremely unsafe and unsanitary because it is bleached.

This should have been spotted very quickly in America, since it is their practice and all scientists are raised from hatchling (what, you thought scientists were human?) to listen to the Precautionary Principle.

So, no, I do not regard Americans as experts.

But that's ok. If there's something real, it'll be spotted by the EU, Russia, China, India or Africa, all places with scientific traditions. China's is perhaps the oldest, although they took a rest for a bit. If it's important, they'll notice and publish. I don't have to listen to one specific group. If it isn't replicated, or can't be, then it's not worth me paying attention to. If EU scientists don't trust the results, then they're experts and I listen to experts.

Is GMO food actually harmful? There's no proof of that. The precautionary principle doesn't require that there's proof of harm, it requires that you don't do anything if you don't understand the risks. Since it is applied here, it follows that a very large body of highly credible experts say that the risks aren't adequately understood to the standards expected by their profession.

GMO research is therefore substandard. There may be no risks at all, but the research isn't there.

Is it inherently harmful? Of course not! Horizontal gene transfers are remarkably common, albeit usually not from squid to pigs. I daresay that happens occasionally, though.

But it's only with CAS9 that they've been able to GMO humans to cure genetic diseases without an unacceptable cancer risk. Early retroviral inserts were more troublesome. Ergo, I would need to know the expert opinion on different generations of GMO food.

I don't see any problem with this. Ask an expert about a specific generation of GMO, not about GMO in the abstract. GMO in the abstract is safe, GMO in a specific formulation isn't necessarily and there may not be the data.

Should we put blind faith in GMO? With the myriad of techniques and the refusal of EU scientists to approve it, I'd say no. Blind faith in a specific technique, that's not so unreasonable, if EU scientists think it is safe.

Pesticide-enhanced crops? No, that's stupid. You're making resistant insects and killing off the beneficial wildlife. We know that. And most create pesticides either banned or temporarily halted prior to a ban due to the incompetence of the formula and the extreme damage to the environment.

Drought-resistant crops? If the EU scientists say it's ok, then ok.

Although, frankly, we massively overproduce food and America has a massive obesity problem. Reducing farmland to an absolute minimum and re-wilding the relinquished land would go a long way to improving health globally.

Not asking the right questions

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I welcome this study, it didn't really ask the right questions and unfortunately kind of insinuates that knowledge of GM technology is the most important factor in judging whether GM food should be allowed. That's not true in general, my arguments against GM food have almost nothing to do with the way the genetic modifications work or with direct environmental impacts, they are political and philosophical. I'm pretty sure others have similar doubts.

The philosophical argument is a bit complex, involving several steps and premises. First, there is not much doubt that in the far future humans will drastically modify species including their own, given that almost every technology that has ever been invented has been used. Second, nevertheless it seems possible to kind of limit the impact of technologies, as for example the bans against nuclear proliferation show. Not every nation has nuclear weapons -- at least not yet, and that seems a good thing. Third, the larger the possible negative and positive long-term consequences of new technologies, the more you will need to err on the side of caution. (Technically, this could mean that you should use possibility theory instead of Expected Utility principles, for example.) Fourth, the more a technology is accepted and used in a society for one purpose, the more likely it will also be accepted and used for other purposes. Once GM food is ubiquitous, maybe animals will be modified next, and then humans, and so forth. I'm not claiming that there is an inevitable slippery slope, but some caution seems advisable. Fifth, human history has shown so far that humans are incapable of judging the very long-term impacts of technologies correctly. Both the net positive and net negative effects are blatantly misjudged once we're talking about time spans of 100-200 years. If you combine all those points, especially the third and fifth, then it seems that not being too liberal about GM technology and thinking this through in a bit more detail could be advisable. You certainly don't only want geneticists specializing in GM food in your expert panels for evaluating the technology. At the very least, we should perhaps delay or restrict technologies with a potential to have a high impact on the ecological system in the light of point five and point four. Again, the claim is not that a slippery slope is inevitable, but point five is still something to take into account. It's naive and irresponsible to make this a debate about "GM food" only.

The political point is simpler. The corporations who most fervently lobby for GM food have a proven history of not necessarily having the best interests of their consumers in mind, neither the interests of farmers nor those of end consumers, and have in the past been involved in all kinds of shady business about pesticides, seeds that make farmers dependent on the company, aggressive lawsuits against customers and aggressive patent policies, and so on. They also are lobbying very intensively against labelling GM food, even though there is almost no sane reason against such a requirements. In fact, their attempts to explain this rationale are mostly ridiculous despite the fact that they spend so much money on P&R. For example, they frequently argue that "there is not enough space on the packaging". In reality, their motivations are purely economical, they want to ensure that in mass production GM modified and non-GM-modified resources can be freely mixed in order to save costs. This is only a benefit to large food corporations, of course, who destroy smaller farmers and companies by sheer numbers. Irrespectively of the more philosophical worries, this alone should give you reason to think twice. Do you want no mandatory labelling, no free consumer choice, and instead laws that favour large corporations with a shady past? Do you wish to support Nestle and Bayer instead of local farming? Then maybe you should politically support GM food. If not, if you think that large food corporations are not necessarily the best choice for consumers

Today's Scientists are Yesterday's Priests

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists today purport to tell us how the world works, just as yesterday's high priests did. Those without means to directly confirm what is said (the majority of us), need to take their word for it.

Of course today's scientists support their contentions with data, facts etc. which supposedly were collected without any bias; just like yesterday's priests supported their contentions with "evidence" collected (charred stuff, etc.).

Finally today's Scientists corroborate each other's findings, just as yesterday's priests did.

Unfortunately, just as yesterday, there are Scientists today that skew stuff for their own interests and muddy the waters, and too many of the unwashed masses are willing to follow them.

All in all I will still take today's scientists over yesterday's (or today's) priests, but I do have to keep an open mind to figure out if what they are saying is truly the way things work, or if they are just guessing to give themselves a name.

TFA points out how people can cherry pick the information they want to believe and then call themselves experts on a subject.

Unfortunately I don't see a way to fix this....

Re:Bad study design.

[angel'o'sphere]

Good post!!

That is why we have in all TV shows where a scientist is questioned all the lab material, instruments, assistances etc present to show the public that every of his word is right.

And when they diagnose breast cancer in my right breast (yeah, men can get breast cancer) I spent about 5 years in research, and ask my friends to fund it, to confirm the results.

Hint: "if you don't trust in *experts* ... what is your job? How can I prevent meeting you?"