I hate the Commercial Ethos of Science

My final assignment for The Art and Craft of Journalism Course

I hate the commercial ethos of science because it has caused peoples' trust to be eroded to such an extent its duel plinth of fact and truth is ready to topple. Most, but not all of those chiselling away at the pedestal are those without scientific backgrounds. They not only mistrust the results, they mistrust the scientists motives and unlike fifty years ago, when science was seen as the way to a 'Brave New World' which would be the answer to all our needs and wants, in the 21st century, numerous people see science as the road to ruin. Are those, who like me mistrust science due to its commercial ethos right? Or is it just a sign of 21st Century Cynicism?

“This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

If the drive for scientific knowledge was truth and scientists were obliged to admit when they were shown to be wrong there would be more trust in science and scientists. If research was for the betterment of all, there would be more trust, but I hate the commercial ethos of science because scientists won't or can't hold their hands up and say, "Our experimental design was flawed so our results mean nothing."

I hate the commercial ethos of science because profit, ego, and reputation now drive the majority of research. In academia, supervisors push researchers to manipulate data to allow the supervisors to achieve more publications to their name, so they can move up the ranks from simply being a 'Doctor' to achieve the coveted title 'Professor'. Meanwhile, University funding budgets are based on quantity of research, no matter how flawed it will be shown to be a few years down the line. Quantity over quality dilutes real advances as well as instilling mistrust in the well-informed, increasingly sceptical public.

As an example of why I hate the commercial ethos of science, I am using genetically modified (GM) crops. In the pure altruistic theory of science, GM crops could feed the whole world, by developing strains that are more drought resistant, or could cope with having their roots starved of oxygen by water logging. I hate the commercial ethos of science because GM crops are not developed for the benefit of humanity. They are created to make offensively large, offensively powerful global corporations even more offensively rich. The profit and loss spreadsheets have no room for sentiment or, ethics.

I hate the commercial ethos of science because the science behind the growth of GM crop strains is linked to the development of GM specific herbicides and pesticides. Together these combine to ensure that farmers the world over become trapped in a circle of dependency. Farmers' not only have to buy the seed, they are forced to accept the high prices for the chemicals without which their crop will fail. This results in the latest form of subjugation and exploitation by addiction, equal to that seen in the 18th century in China when the British Government traded opium for China Tea. This time it is on a potentially worldwide scale.

I hate the commercial ethos of science because even those who choose not to buy GM seeds will suffer. GM crops are already spreading their made-manipulated genes via pollen that can travel 10's or even 100's of miles from the source, so that even those who chose not to use GM seed will find their crops becoming addicted to the expensive pesticides and herbicides developed by the profit driven multi-national corporations.

I hate the commercial ethos of science because it is inducing global addictions to the one thing all life needs to survive. Food. I hate the commercial ethos of science because for worldwide food production this is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. In the near future, countries will find themselves controlled by faceless offensively powerful global corporations, who grow more powerful aided by complicit and corrupt governments. I fear for the future of our children's children because it is they who will be chosen to live or die, as food becomes a viable method of regulating and reducing world populations.