It never ceases to amaze me how low people will go in order to push a political agenda. Brian John, of GM-Free Cymru, did just that in his open letter to Mark Lynas dated February 10, 2013. You may recall Mark Lynas’ powerful address to the Oxford Farming Conference in early January where he apologized for assisting in the demonization of GM, a technology that can be used to benefit the environment. It is a technology that Lynas now defends:
“What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.” M. Lynas
As a social scientist, much of my work revolves around the qualitative analysis of interview data and text-based analysis. Words and language and how they are used to communicate are revealing about people, their circumstances or their position on a given social issue.
Out of curiosity, I took the liberty of using “Wordle” to generate some word clouds to contrast and compare the text in Mark Lynas’ speech (January 3, 2013) with the text of John’s ‘open letter’ to Lynas (posted February 10th). Here are the results:
Wordle ‘word cloud’ of the text of Mark Lynas’ lecture at the Oxford Farming Conference:
text of Mark Lynas’ lecture at the Oxford Farming Conference – Jan 3, 2013
Wordle ‘word cloud’ of the text of Brian John’s open letter to Mark Lynas: “Beware the Rise of the Science Stalinist”:
Text of B. John’s open letter to Mark Lynas, Feb 10, 2013
Mark’s speech starts with “I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops.”
John’s letter to Mark begins with the ‘Stalinist’ reference and then goes to… “I want to address just one issue arising from your recent high-profile conversion into a GM evangelist.” (From there on, John ‘ties’ into the collective effort of independent reputable scientists to ask for the retraction of a poorly executed study by Séralini and his team; a study that has since been discredited by several food safety organizations worldwide (including but not limited to: Health Canada, European Food Safety Authority, French National Institute for Agriculture Research, CNRS, Inserm, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, National Centre for Scientific Review… check out my previous blog entry)).
So, how about those terms of reference? In his address, Mark uses words like: hope, world, growth, innovation, farmers, think, better. B. John uses words like (well, once you get past the lists of ‘villains’ and ‘victims’): attacks, zealots, beware, vilification, witches, burning, Rottweilers.
What a marked difference.
Words are powerful. They are a form of action; they can influence change. As we try to elevate the discourse around the GM debate, the kind of language we use matters. It is a reflection of our intent and our willingness to engage in a thought-provoking and proactive manner. Brian John’s text not only inaccurately represents the facts, but the tone and his choice of words suggest that he is less interested in engaging in constructive dialogue and more interested in purveying rhetoric.
We need to use better words; we need to find a better way.
Well now, Cami — I think we know where you are coming from! Lynas’s speech was a carefully crafted puff, deliberately filled with all those wonderful words which you so obviously adore. The problem was that it was woefully short of facts, and woefully short of any understanding of GM issues. Many of the “facts” which he did offer to his listeners were demonstrably wrong — as many scientists have pointed out. Do some research on this, and you will understand what I am saying. By the way, will you kindly itemise those facts which you think I have got wrong? i will be only too happy to try and increase your understanding of the issues.
I thought your little Wordle game was entertaining, and I really enjoyed your tactic of printing the Lynas words black on a white background and mine white on a black background. i can rejoice in my newfound status as the devil incarnate…..