Looking Back at the Entry Level of the Controversy: article 1

In Article 1, Losey et al. are specific about their methodology and research. They explain their concern or reason for the experiment—that there is possibility that larvae of the Monarch will come in contact with the Bt modified corn. Also explained is the obtaining of the measurements: pollen being tapped into boxes and larval weighing. However, Losey et al. are slightly sloppy or bias-driven in stating the results that they have published. They state that what they have found “have potentially profound implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies.” Further they claim, “it is imperative that we gather the data necessary to evaluate the risks associated with this new agrotechnology.”

WIth the publication of this article and those statements specified, a large portion of the populace became activated. The statements could be a purposeful statement to insinuate that the overall implications of agriculture and biotechnology be scrutinized with more awareness by the general population. Losey et al. are successful if this was the intention. But even if the statements were naïve, the article became a bold report that caused many agriculturally invested companies to get involved, as well as the government (the EPA) and concerned communities. This is where genetic modification becomes not simply an agricultural option for farmers, but a worldwide controversy because of the implications. The reason for concern is not the death of the Monarch butterflies, but possible damage biotechnology in agriculture could have on people and the overall surrounding environment.

Losey at al. make a very political move in their statements ending their publication. In the second statement, not only have they implied that agrotechnology is potentially dangerous, but they have also laid the foot work for more research to be done. When they state, “it is imperative that we gather data necessary,” Losey et al. discount their own results at the same time that they credit them. This is common practice in the “making-of-science” realm—to claim that your work is valid but leaves room for further studies. Also this form of discounting, presents a sense that Losey et al. are a part of the science-making community, not merely outsiders.