| dc.contributor.author |
Tillotson, Michael |
en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2009-07-31T14:52:57Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2009-07-31T14:52:57Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2000 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2008-11-19 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2008-11-19 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/2713 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
"Unlike Walker and Lonsdale (2000), in Minnesota we don't consider the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be a 'dialogue of the deaf.' Nor would we agree that the position of GMO proponents, i.e., the 'scientists and technocrats,' is supported by 'hard data,' while the 'environmentalists' are the only ones making 'alarmist claims.' In Minnesota we have environmentalists who are also scientists, alarmist claims from corporate PR departments, and precious little hard data in support of either position." |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
technology |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
science |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
genetic resources |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Reasoning without Data, Default Assumptions: A response to: Walker and Lonsdale. 2000. 'Genetically Modified Organisms at the Crossroads: Comments on 'Genetically Modified Crops: Risks and Promise' by Gordon Conway' |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
published |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Social Organization |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationjournal |
Ecology and Society |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationvolume |
4 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationnumber |
2 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationmonth |
December |
en_US |