——This article is an entry for the "Comment Star" selection contest for college students.
Xiao Cui and the students from the Agricultural University started to "pinch" again. "Pinching" is not a bad thing. It can at least attract public attention to the topic of genetically modified foods. However, this time the "pinch" obviously crossed the line. The process was ridiculous. Agricultural University students used irrational language to criticize Xiao Cui, but Xiao Cui posted these words on Weibo and denounced them as rubbish. If both parties calm down, calm down and re-examine their own behavior, they will definitely laugh out loud at their "childish" vindictive behavior.
As the saying goes, the more you distinguish the truth, the clearer it becomes. However, this sentence does not seem to be applicable to biological sciences, because the truth of science requires rigorous data and a rigorous argumentation system. It is a systematic and complex procedure. It is not just a few shakes of the arms and a few shouts of the voice that can "defeat the opponent" and win the truth. Moreover, the basis of "debate" is that both parties should have a common knowledge background and disciplinary thinking. From this perspective, the debate between Xiao Cui and the students from Agricultural University is like Don Quixote fighting windmills. Although the logic points of both sides are the same, the logical corridors no longer intersect like two rays. It would be strange if such a "debate" situation does not develop into verbal criticism.
Xiao Cui is a well-known media figure. Whether he hosted "The Truth" or dared to "fire" against relevant government departments at the Two Sessions, he has accumulated a lot of popularity and won widespread public trust. This can be seen from the corresponding comments from the public. Regarding the debate on genetically modified foods, I have no doubts about Xiao Cui’s sense of social responsibility and national sentiment, but after all, Xiao Cui’s professional attribute is that of a “journalist”, not a biologist. To a certain extent, Xiao Cui's ability to successfully draw public attention to genetically modified foods has already demonstrated his sense of responsibility and feelings. However, in terms of judging whether genetically modified foods are harmful, his public trust may still be questionable.
Does this mean that Agricultural University students have an overwhelming say? Let’s take a look at the Baidu Encyclopedia definition of genetically modified food: The so-called genetically modified food refers to the use of biotechnology to transfer the genes of certain organisms to other species, modifying the genetic material of organisms, so that their traits, nutritional quality, consumption quality, etc. can be transformed to the goals needed by humans. Foods that use genetically modified organisms as direct food or processed as raw materials are genetically modified foods. This kind of explanation is confusing to most people, and they have no idea what they are talking about. From this perspective, Agricultural University students must have a discourse advantage, but this advantage is still only relative. The safety issue of genetically modified foods is still hotly debated in foreign academic circles, and Chinese academic circles have not yet produced conclusive research results. After all, Agricultural University students are still just students, and their credibility in judging the safety of genetically modified foods is obviously not recognized by the public.
Frankly speaking, Xiao Cui and the students from Agricultural University are in two different discourse systems. Xiao Cui is a well-known media figure, so he has enough social responsibility and sufficient media power to speak out; and the students from Agricultural University are in the scientific system, so they can popularize some basic knowledge about genetically modified foods to improve the basic scientific literacy of the people. This is a collaboration between the two parties and "everyone is happy" among the civil forces. Why do you need to earn a "life or death", or even escalate to abuse and criticism?
Let me cite a perhaps inappropriate example. A hundred years ago, when the railway tracks were first laid during the Qing Dynasty, they also aroused great fear and resistance from the people. I am not claiming that genetically modified foods are safe. Railway technology has been scientifically proven and has brought great convenience and driving force to people's lives and social development. It will take time to answer whether genetically modified food is a new technological revolution or a disaster.
What needs to be pointed out in particular is that in this debate, government departments cannot "hide behind and turn a blind eye" and do not wait for public opinion to force them to speak out, thereby falling into a passive and embarrassing situation. They should fully respond to public opinion, do a good job in disclosure, supervision and protection when the safety of genetically modified foods is not clear, and fully give the public the right to know and make free choices. As for this debate, Xiao Cui and the students from Agricultural University might as well give some time to relevant research.
Reply to the following keywords to view exciting content from previous issues
Comment Contest︱Contest︱Commentary Star︱Red Hot Chili Pepper︱Red Hot Chili Pepper Review︱Red Net Comment︱Tu Youyou︱Nobel Prize︱The Way of Current Commentary︱Current Commentary︱Seminar︱Critical Commentary Seminar︱Excellent Work Selection︱Essays︱Commentator︱Commentary Yuan︱Female Author︱ Female commentator︱Critic︱Critic︱Yang Guowei︱Lao Yan︱Yan Lieshan︱Cao Lin︱Judge︱Excellent work︱Baby︱Yang Ying︱Contribution︱Mailbox︱Chairman of the Federation of Literary and Art Circles︱Xiong Aichun︱Wang Zhaoshan︱Milk Tea︱Milk Tea Sister︱Bad article︱I want to contribute
