What features of scientific practice contribute to the controversy?

This is an interesting question. 

You could say that the entire science of GM is contributing to the controversy surrounding it.

Critics of this technology will pick out any bit of the science behind GM and say why it’s bad/wrong.

For example; the process of inserting the gene isn’t specific enough, the process of isolating the gene isn’t specific enough, safety testing procedures aren’t good enough, etc.

These critics will pull apart anything they can (rightly or wrongly), and if scientists defend it, the critics will either push for more ‘proof’ or move on to something else. (Proof is an interesting thing, as we discussed in class. I’ll touch on it in another post.)

I think the biggest feature of scientific practice that’s contributing to the controversy is the lack of adequate communication. I’ll talk about this in the next post.