Scammers Use Of Sound Science In Social Media

GMOs are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. The GMO debate has a huge gap just like the climate change’s ambiguous debate. Some people are for the consumption of it and have as arguments that GMOs will feed the future population of the world that is expected to double in the few years to come, or that scientists can build stronger crops that resist to pests, therefore less use of pesticides. Some are against these ideas because they think that GMOs represent a threat to the environment and that they can cause a lot of health problems. The goal of this paper is to look at two articles “The GMO Debate is Over Again” by Mark Lynas and" Seeds of Evil: Monsanto and Genetic Engineering" by Dr. Joseph Mercola, and see where the use rhetorical strategies are effective and where they are not.

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

For years there has been public controversies over the advancements in science and all of the health risks that have been around, but now the use of the media has certainly boosted the amount of confusion throughout the public. Frightening stories regarding the progressions of science have been appearing online and in print. One particular example of this issue was the MMR vaccine debate. The MMR vaccine is an immunization vaccine which fights against rubella, measles, and mumps. During the 1990’s the media played a huge role in the decisions parents made regarding whether or not they allowed their children to get vaccinated. The media portrayed the MMR vaccine as having a possible link between autism. Which left the public worried about the MMR vaccine and having conflicting views and feelings towards the safety of vaccinations. In the MMR vaccine debate scientist and the media played two different roles which helped citizens make decisions regarding vaccination.

Medicine is often called an art rather than a science. While I do not agree with this assessment entirely, because I believe in the value of empirically-gathered evidence, I do understand why many patients are frustrated by what often seems like contradictory studies supporting different health treatments. One week it seems as if there is an article in the newspaper stressing that preventative screening is valuable; the next week there is an article stating that too much testing can yield too many false positives. One week exercise is stressed as a means of weight loss, the next week a healthy diet. From a layperson's and even a provider's perspective, this can seem confusing. There is also an unfortunate degree of confusing chatter from the commercial purveyors of medicine, promoting specific drugs or treatments.

Throughout the years climate change has been a controversial issue affecting individuals worldwide; climate change has been debated by scientists including the rest of the world. Many factors can affect climate change such as biological factors and human actions. The intricate details are what go unnoticed and unmanaged, people may be greatly against this claim. However, it is underlying factors, like landfills and driving cars, that help maintain the increasing temperature of the earth thus, climate change has become a controversial topic. There have been concerns that climate change does not exist but there is reliable proof that it does even if many scientists do not agree on the existence of climate change.

In conclusion, GMOs and pesticides are harmful and alarming to producers and consumers. They cause animals pain and harm humans when consumed. Many animals live short and painful lives, while humans now must suffer with long term diseases or damage to their bodies. Although some argue that Genetically modified produce is benefiting producers and consumers, I still argue that genetically modified organisms harm animals and

The natural sciences is a world the general public will either dive into head first to exploit research out of fear and ignorance or to coexist with and celebrate recent advancements and discoveries. Whether or not the public stands and cheers or sulks and cries is entirely dependent on the accessibility of information and data that is available for public discretion and evaluation. People remain ignorant about many scientific advances that have paved the path for potential scientific solutions in major areas including cancer research, prenatal health, pediatric medicine, and genetics. However, sometimes the disregard for the aforementioned scientific triumphs is not entirely the fault of the public. The media has an incredible influence

With all the bad science in the media the general public is often confused as to which are the correct choices. Educating the public to be better consumers of science would improve general health and lower the need for access to healthcare (Pincus, Esther, DeWalt, & Callahan 1998).

Recently, there has been multiple studies regarding whether or not GMOs are safe for human and animal consumption, and the results are extremely negative (“5 Reasons NOT to Eat Genetically Modified Foods”). From these tests, researchers have found birth defects, sterility, organ damage, gastrointestinal disorder, gut rot, new allergies, accelerating aging, infertility and immune system disorder in rats (“Smith”, “5 Reasons NOT to Eat Genetically Modified Foods”). These tests are not only done on rats. Glyphosate, a substance in Roundup, caused “total cell death in human umbilical, embryo, and placental cells within twenty-four hours” (“5 Reasons NOT to Eat Genetically Modified Foods”). Therefore, Genetically Modified Organisms have been proven to be extremely dangerous to our health. Lastly, “After GMOs were introduced in 1966, the percentage of Americans with more than three chronic illnesses went from seven percent to thirteen percent in nine years” (“Smith”). Additionally, “food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders like autism, reproductive disorders, and digestive problems are on the rise” (“Smith”). Genetically Modified Organisms cause extreme damage on our bodies and should be banned.

In our materialistic society that is controlled by consumer preferences, it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between pseudoscience that one can find on the internet, and credible science. Willingham in his article defines pseudoscience as having a shaky foundation of practices that are often medically related, but lack basis in evidence. Additionally, they emphasize confirmation over refutation in their argument because they do not have the evidence to support their claims against critics with conflicting evidence. Science, is defined in our textbook as, a study that uses the scientific method and something that has been replicated to test for credibility. Furthermore, certain certifications and approvals are required before an individual

Scientific sensationalism does not just water down the conversation surrounding important issues, it can make them dangerous. Because democracies hinge on an informed public, with increasing amounts of sensationalism, this public may be desensitized to genuinely alarming scientific discoveries because the have become acclimated to attention grabbing headlines

The amount of trust that the public puts into scientist and engineers, the media’s prerogative, and the vulnerability of parents. Over the past 100 years the skepticism of the public towards science and engineering has waned. The mentality “if it works don't question it” has allowed scientists to reach new levels of influence. For example, if a person follows advice from a doctor, and it turns out to be true, it reinforces the idea that all doctors are infallible. There is such a tremendous gap between what scientist know and what the general public believes scientists know. The occupation of the corespondent is significant when determining the effect it will have upon the public. If a group of middle school students were to have released the Lancet study it would have been discounted much earlier. The media would not have played such a major role in the results distribution. However to the general public, when a group of “Scientists” release a paper about a correlation between vaccines and autism they are instantly intrigued. This is compounded by the media. The media is a constant feeding frenzy, money is earned from consumer’s time. News that sells, is always tinged with the darker side of humanity. War/terror, man made disasters, money and crime are all within the top 6 most requested topics for news. The media used the Lancet study as an opportunity to give

Not long ago a leading scientific journal called Nature, noted that the health minded are surrounded with advice pertaining to genetically modified crops. But they also noted that a lot of that information is false, on either side of the argument.

In recent years, scientists and the general public have become increasingly aware of climate change. Scientists have begun and continue to study historical and geologic records in order to determine natural patterns versus human-induced changes in climate. By studying historical data and recent impacts, scientists may be able to determine consequences people will face now and in the future.

Scientist that are against the GMOs have debated these topics in many perspectives, but the three most important arguments are the dangerous amounts of herbicides used on crops, environmental harm in our ecosystem and the linkage between GMOs and toxins in our bodies. With these debates scientist against GMOs have hoped to raise the awareness of daily