When looking at the three articles presented for this weeks blog, I begun with Monsanto. Although it is presented in an easy to view and navigate, it also has a very large bias. It is promoting the biotechnology. If you are looking to find organization that support GMOs Monsanto will provide you with that information. As we discussed in class, very person as a bias; as a student it is important to understand that and to find information that both supports and questions your opinion. Say No to GMOs also has a bias, there is just the opposite of Monsanto. This site has no specific author but does seem to be updated month. It reminds me of Wikipedia -- although there is some credible information but you have to check the sources.
I believe that the nature.com information is the most trustworthy. Although there is no quick way to contact the author, information is presented by a respectable authority and is as recent as 2008.
My thoughts on GMOs are brief. I don't know much about them but I wish as a consumer there were easy to access information that is credible but also presents both sides of the argument. I try to watch what I put in my body but I find the things I shouldn't eat taste delicious. I maintain that moderation is the best.
"Pros and Cons of GMOs." Organic. Love To Kow, September 9, 2009. Web. 25 May 2010.
Yes, the biases with some of these websites are quite substantial, and thus dictates the kind of information they provide. That said, I agree with your assertion that information and openness do provide the opportunity for disagreeing viewpoints to be subjected to the light of day, allowing the consumer to make an informed decision about what they eat.
ReplyDeleteAgree on all accounts. However I tried an experiment with my roommate having him read the two biased sources and asked him to form his own opinion. I than had him read nature.com's article and his opinions stayed the same. Maybe there is something to biased writing, you just have to look at both extremes.
ReplyDelete