Mark Lynas (@mark_lynas) is a researcher at the Cornell Alliance for Science. He was once an anti-GMO activist, and even admits to participating in the vandalism of field trials in Britain.

Then he changed his mind.

In a provocative opinion piece written for the The New York Times, Lynas discusses how his thinking evolved.

“After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.

There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.

He also writes this:


No one claims that biotech is a silver bullet. The technology of genetic modification can’t make the rains come on time or ensure that farmers in Africa have stronger land rights. But improved seed genetics can make a contribution in all sorts of ways: It can increase disease resistance and drought tolerance, which are especially important as climate change continues to bite; and it can help tackle hidden malnutritional problems like vitamin A deficiency.


Related Links:

Why record requests bother scientists

The gap: what scientists know and what the public thinks

Advances in “genetic firewall” research could address GMO concerns

U.S. disappointed by EU proposal to allow biotech bans