Sense about Science ? equipping people to make sense of science and evidence
Petition and comments
6060 people have signed the petition
The Don't Destroy Research petition is now closed, many thanks to everyone who signed it. Below is the list of signatories and their comments. You can also see a collection of public support for the Rothamsted researchers' appeal here.
The planned direct action against the GM wheat experiment at Rothamsted did not happen on Sunday 27th May. The GM wheat trial is ongoing.
James Motteram, Student
Cameron Blair, Student
Sylwester Głowacki, Poland
Jae Redfern, Projects Manager
Chris Evans, Student
Jennie Kermode, Journalist
It is deeply unfortunate that some people associating themselves with environmentalism have chosen to disrupt the type of research that offers our best hope of ending the use of environmentally destructive pesticides. They absolutely do not speak for all those supportive of the green agenda.
Stef Lewandowski, Designer and technologist
Katie Muddiman, Microbiologist
Research occurs in order to find out things we don't know, or to add to an incomplete story. The more we know, the better decisions we can make, and the better answers we can give.
sonriza Ford, Business Development and Licensing Manager
There are always two sides to a debate. Societies in the world have progressed or evolved through their own choice of paths of development (in this case, GMO vs non GMO adoption). Debates and choices are part of our lives whether you are a politican, a business leader, a consumer advocate, a food producer, a health provider, a homemaker, etc. In the case of GMO vs non GMO adoption, it is a very important choice for the nation to make that can only be made if two sides are willing to work together and engage in a well-informed, non-violent debate. So it is sad to me that these protestors clearly would rather resort to destruction of property, aggression and crime than engage in a useful debate, the outcome of which would impact every one of us. So my question is - why don’t these protestors want to engage in a debate? Is that because they are already losing the debate? What do you think would happen to society if every time a side or someone loses a debate that such violent, destructive behavior is accepted? Here’s my view on the debate on biotechnology or the very tools to make GMOs. The debate on biotechnology is analogous to the debate we had on computer technology when it was in its infancy. In the earlier stages of development of PCs and internet connectivity, there were folks who were seriously concerned about the existence of these new technologies. Their view is that these computer tools could be used, for instance, as a tool for child pornography. The fear that some people have on biotechnology is similar, in that it could be used to make crops with the terminator gene, with known allergenic proteins, etc. These fears are reasonable like the fear that PCs could be used to enable child pornography. However, let’s not shoot the tools or the technologies, as every tool or technology can be used to bad or good use. Instead, let’s debate on what these good uses are for the technologies that we (so fortunately) already have and make choices that would benefit society and humanity.
David Davies, Solicitor
David Joice, Agrochemicals
Edward Long, Project manager
Destroying public research just hands a monopoly to big biotech. Don't do it!
Sarah Davies, Environmental Science Lecturer
Matthew Lewis, Researcher
Rob James, Cycling instructor
"Evidence-based medicine" is promoted as the most effective way to improve our health; "evidence-based agriculture" should be equally beneficial. Good luck in promoting it against the facile caricatures and prejudice that require so much less effort.
P W Jaggard, Farmer
Edward Conley, MSc Student
Research has been a driving force in the advancement of our society, to favour superstition based on ignorance over carefully controlled scientific experiments is a testament to dark age attitudes held by certain minorities today. Protecting this trial isn't just supporting GM but scientific advancement through research as a whole.
Guy Smith, Designer
Helen Czerski, scientist
Destroying evidence is destroying the best tool we have for building a better world.