Cover not available
Part of
Science and Democracy: Controversies and conflicts
Edited by Pierluigi Barrotta and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 13] 2018
► pp. 87–108

Chapter 5
Decisions without scientists?

Two case studies about GM plants and invasive acacia in Hungary

In my paper I will present two case studies showing that politics partly disregard the scientific standpoint in decision processes. I will examine the reputation of the research on genetically modified (GM) plants and their experts in Hungary as well as the status of invasive acacia, observing the articles on these cases in the most popular daily newspapers and online news portals by rhetorical and content analysis. I also conducted interviews with experts of GM plants to get to know the research in practice. I will present that scientific viewpoints in these cases were mostly treated in the process of policy-making in an imbalanced manner, although the opinions of experts should have been treated equally.
Keywords: scientific policy, science journalism, media, controversies, Hungary, genetically modified plants, invasive acacia, rhetoric, content analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The beginning of STS and positivist approach
    • 1.2Constructivism, ‘Mode 2’ and boundaries
  • 2.A case for genetically modified plants
    • 2.1What should we know about GMOs and GM plants?
      • 2.1.1Genetic modification: spread
      • 2.1.2Regulation of GM plants
      • 2.1.3Support of GM plants
      • 2.1.4Conflicts about GM plants
    • 2.2Method of GM plants examination
      • 2.2.1Cases of GM plants
      • 2.2.2Media
    • 2.3Results of the media’s examination in the case of GM maize
    • 2.4Results of interviews
    • 2.5Conclusions for the case of GM plants
  • 3.Case of invasive acacia
    • 3.1What should we know about invasive species and acacia?
    • 3.2Conflict of invasive acacia in Hungary
    • 3.3Method of invasive acacia’s examination
    • 3.4Results
    • 3.5Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.13.07pet
References (37)
References
Baintner, K. (1999). A genetikai módosítás és a félremódosított tájékoztatás. [The Genetic Modification and ’Mis-modified’ Information.] Biokémia 23: 64–67.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1945). Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
CDC (2014). National Diabetes Statistics Report.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. N., Chang, A. C., & Boyer, H. W. (1973). Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids In Vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 70(11), 3240–3244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csiszár, Á. (2012). Inváziós növényfajok Magyarországon. [Invasive Plant Species in Hungary.] Sopron: Nyugat-magyarországi Egyetem Kiadó.Google Scholar
Darvas, B. (1999). Nézőpontok, ha különböznek. [If Viewpoints are Different.] Biokémia, 23(4): 99–102.Google Scholar
Dudits, D. (1999). A géntechnológia szerepvállalása a növénynemesítésben: A Pusztai-botrány üzenete. [The Role of Gene Technology in Plant Breeding: The Message of Pusztai-scandal.] Biokémia, 23(2): 41–43.Google Scholar
European Commission (2015). Honey Market Presentation. Agricultural and Rural Development. [URL]Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: New Left Book.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. (2006). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of Science. In S. Jasanoff et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp.393–443). London: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guston, D. (2000a). Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b). Retiring the Social Contract for Science. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Index.hu (2011, September 21). GMO: az alkotmány dönt a tudósok helyett. [GMO: The Constitution Decides instead of Scientists.] Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
(2012, March 29). GMO-élelmiszerek mellett érvelt, kirúgták. [Argued in favor of GM Foods: He Was Fire Out.] Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Jackson, D. D., Symons, R. H., & Berg, P. (1972). Biochemical Method for Inserting New Genetic Information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA Molecules Containing Lambda Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 69(10), 2904–2909. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, C. (2014). 2014 ISAAA Report on Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). [URL]Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1977). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Magyar Nemzet (2014, March 1) Az akác mint Hungarikum?! [Acacia as ‘Hungarikum’?!]Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. Storer (Eds.) & R. K. Merton. The Sociology of Science (pp.267–279). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Nyitray, L. (2013). Géntechnológia és fehérjemérnökség. [Gene Technology and Protein Engineering.] Budapest: ELTE TTK Biológiai Intézet.Google Scholar
Palmiter, R. D., & Brinster, R. L. (1982). Dramatic Growth of Mice that Develop from Eggs Microinjected with Metallothionein – growth Hormone Fusion Genes. Nature, 300, 611–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polányi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Pusztai, Á. (2000). Gondolatok a génmódosított élelmiszerek kapcsán kialakult vitáról. [Thoughts about the Debate on Genetically Modified Plants.] Biokémia, 26(2): 51–56.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. M. (1971). Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sajgó, M. (1999). Biotechnológia: a szellem már kívül, de megvan-e még a palack? [Biotechnology: the Genie is Outside, But Do We Still Have the Bottle?] Biokémia, 23(2): 38–40.Google Scholar
Séralini, G. -E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D. and de Vendômois, J. S. (2012). Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11): 4221–4231. (Retraction published January, 2014, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 63: 244) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Guardian Online (2012, September 28). Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators. Retrieved from [URL]
TNS Opinion (2010). Eurobarometer 73.1 Biotechnology. Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Torkos, M. (2011, September 15). Frankensteinék a spájzban. [The Frankensteins in the larder.] Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Venetianer, P. (1999). A nézőpontok valóban különböznek. [Viewpoints are Truly Different.] Biokémia, 23(4): 102–104.Google Scholar
Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. (1953). A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171, 737–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziman, J. (1996). “Postacademic Science”: Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms. Science Studies, 9(1): 67–80.Google Scholar