Ignorance as a basis for policy
Good; let’s everybody pile on Charles. He needs to be told his status doesn’t substitute for scientific training.
The heir to the throne may wish to use his privileged position to promote his organic produce while denigrating those of us who wish to use science to help feed the world. But he should at least do so from a position of scientific evidence rather than ideological dogma. He shows a common misunderstanding of how agricultural science works. What’s worse, though, is that his comments risk reinforcing the mistrust felt by much of the public about how their food is produced.
Because of who he is – which is exactly why he should be more cautious about mouthing off instead of less so. His irresponsibility is shocking to behold.
I am reminded of the suggestion made some time ago by Professor Steve Jones of University College London that the best thing the prince could do would be to take an A-level in biology: it would help him to understand the irrationality of his position.
Yes but that would be so plebeian. One isn’t just anyone, after all.
He also blames various ills on modern agriculture more generally – yet fails to see that GM technology could be the solution. He is worried, for instance, about the huge salination problems faced by farmers in many parts of the world. Soil becoming too salty is indeed a problem in places – but GM technology offers us the chance to develop crop varieties that will not just survive but thrive in such conditions.
Yes but you see – hem hem hem, excuse me I’m due at polo just now.
Not so fast Sir.
The Prince is as entitled to his views as anyone. What he is not entitled to do is share them with us. This has nothing to do with whatever merit they might or might not have. It has everything to do with the fact that one day he will be King…The attacks on further GM experiments – which, by definition, are designed to further our knowledge – expose the ignorance behind Prince Charles’s remarks. There is not a shred of evidence – not a jot, not a hint, not a fraction – that there is any risk from GM crops.
Yet his privileged position as next king means that his ignorant views get more exposure than those of people who know something about the subject. That’s bad, and the fact that he doesn’t seem to grasp this makes it worse. It doesn’t seem to cross his mind at all that he could be genuinely harming millions of people (could if his views are ever acted on, at least) and that he therefore ought to…shut up.
I’ve yet to hear Prince Charles decry the use of insulin for diabetics as a “real disaster”. But if he rejects, on principle, the idea of GM crops, he should, because the insulin used is genetically engineered – the human gene that codes for insulin has been transferred into bacteria and yeast, a process that involves crossing the species barrier. But then ignorance need not be consistent and when the Prince opens his mouth he serves only to advance the cause of an unthinking, irrational, ignorance as a basis for policy.
And that cause carries the risk of harming millions of people.
Charles and Bush should form a tiny little book group or something; they have a lot in common.
I don’t see any reason at this stage to be worried about the health or environmental effects of GM food, but on the other hand I find the idea of patenting GM seeds very worrying for a host of different reasons. I guess my concerns lie more with rampant unregulated capitalism than with gene technology.
Frowthwith known as The Prince of Woo.
Forthwith even. Bugger.
“I find the idea of patenting GM seeds very worrying for a host of different reasons.’
Rose, I was reading “Biotechnology and the Third World, by Richard Wolfson, PhD” just as you posted comment.
“I guess my concerns lie more with rampant unregulated capitalism than with gene technology.”
The same here.
Certainly; same here. I think unregulated capitalism creates monsters (to paraphrase Goya drastically). But of course Chuck can’t very well say that, can he…and he probably doesn’t much want to, either. It’s so much simpler and easier and safer just to rail at that horrible unaristocratic Science…
I agree, capitalism does create monsters, but I think I must be one of them. Yesterday I went into town and bought a little laptop table, so that I could set my laptop up in my living room conveniently, for when I had a thought (I sometimes do!), or simply wanted to listen to my German language recordings.
What’s that got to do with monsters? Well, I bought it for $29.95 (Canadian dollars). Just after that, I bought two bottles of my favourite sherry. It’s cheap, but it is my favourite, much better (to my palette) than Havey’s or Amontillada. The two bottles cost me $29.98.
Now, here’s the point. Someone got paid for making the wine. Someone got used for making thae table. I was the one who benefited. Who’s the monster? And how do I stop?
I said unregulated capitalism.
I’m fending off enough horseshit from the right-on Enemies of Development on the women’s studies list, I don’t need any more of it here.
“I think unregulated capitalism creates monsters (to paraphrase Goya drastically). But of course Chuck can’t very well say that, can he…< Ophelia: To be fair to Charles (and that wasn’t easy to write), he ain’t exactly favourably disposed towards big corporations: “What, all run by gigantic corporations? Is that really the answer? I think not. That would be the absolute destruction of everything and… the classic way of ensuring that there is no food in the future.”
Allen, ah yes, so he did – I remember that line now that you point it out. I was being somewhat speculative.
If I understand it correctly there are very real limits to what monarchs (and their successors, I think) can say; that Charles (as many commenters pointed out in these articles) is pushing those limits very hard as it is; and that it really would be too explicitly political (even for him) to repudiate unregulated capitalism. Well the first two bits are what I take to be more or less factual, and I’m extrapolating from that to the third – I’m guessing that he really would be told to knock it off if he said that kind of thing. Is that right?
Well, the problem is that – as far as I recall, I could be mistaken – there is no real mechanism to get him to shut up. I think a lot of the relations between the monarch (and by extension the royals) and parliament are of the gentleman’s agreement kind. So yes, Charles is not supposed to abuse the tribune given him, but if he does…
They are not going to depose him because of his support for organic farming, are they?
“I don’t see any reason at this stage to be worried about the health or environmental effects of GM food, but on the other hand I find the idea of patenting GM seeds very worrying for a host of different reasons. I guess my concerns lie more with rampant unregulated capitalism than with gene technology.”
I absolutely agree on this front. But I do find it interesting how many anti-GM advocates deliberately conflate the intellectual property issue (which is up for debate) with the scientific issues (which largely aren’t). As if the fact that Monsanto wants to patent GM genomes somehow makes all of the ridiculous Frankenfood scare stories true.
Yeah there’s no real mechanism (as far as I know, which is not far)…but I think the PM could lay down the law if he had to. I think that’s sort of the point…the monarch’s powers are limited and it is Parliament that has the real power, and if a monarch or presumptive monarch starts to forget that…Parliament will remind.
In fact – come to think of it – didn’t Thatcher once do exactly that? That might be what I’m thinking of (along with the abdication crisis). I think so, I think she gave Charles a good old rap on the knuckles.
Hmm. I haven’t found anything, but I think that’s because I don’t know what to search for. If anyone knows, speak up.
The NY Times approached it…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DD1339F932A15751C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=7
But there’s no actual knuckle-rap.
As Ophelia and Arnaud have said, the limits on what monarchs and their successors can say is limited by modern convention, not (as far as I know) by any law. I think it was the Times columnist who pointed out that no one has any idea what his mother thinks about any of the matters Charles habitually raises, and that he should keep his trap shut.
As far as I am aware the same rules do not aply to Prince Charles (or other members of the royal family) as aply to his mother the Queen, as long as he stays out of party politics I think he is free to speak as he wishes, for example his father the Duke speaks out quite often on fairly contraversial isues.
The NY Times article, rather says a lot – it puts ones thinking, (mine anyway) re the mindset of Charlie into proper perspective.
“A longtime acquaintance describes Prince Charles as temperamental, a ”butterfly” who finds it hard to stick with it for the long haul. Then there is his ”guru problem” – his tendency to reflect the opinions of his expert-of-the-moment. Also, the man who likes to bash the Establishment in his speeches still likes to retreat into its embrace for weekends of country sport. Friends say the royal populist becomes ”irrationally cross” if fox-hunting and polo companions do not pay due deference.”
Then there is the GM crops scenario, etc, etc…
What NY Times article?
Richard, that’s because the Duke is a loony. That’s the side of the family from which Charles takes. Does anybody remember when Chucky was warning the world of the dangers of the grey goo?
That was a good one!
What the duke does is of course beside the point, because the duke is not next in line of succession. Charles does have to obey much the same rules as his mother does; so does William. All this is nebulous of course, because there’s no constitution; but no, Charles is not officially free to say whatever he wants to.
Anyway, the Duke is not speaking out on controversial issues, he is making controversial (read insane) statements and remarks on perfectly settled issues.
Like racism. For normal people the issue of racism is totally settled: it’s bad.
We are talking about people (the Royals) who are not even trusted to squeeze out their own toothpaste, for FSM’s sake!
Has the duke been putting in a good word for racism? I didn’t know – I don’t follow the duke. Funny guy.
“Jonathan Oliver of the U.K. Mail reports Charles fears the worst-case scenario of what scientists call the ‘grey goo’ theory, in which nanotechnology ‘spinoffs’ could annihilate life on earth. He says Charles knows that nanotechnology has huge potential for progress. The science involves manipulating atoms and molecules – the basic building blocks of the universe. But Charles has also studied academic reports warning that scientists plan to create miniscule ‘nanorobots’ programmed to build new substances, atom by atom, from raw materials. The academics’ report claims that if research goes unchecked, such ‘nanorobots’ could reproduce like viruses, feeding off all natural matter, and, in an apocalyptic scenario, consume the whole planet turning it into a ‘grey goo.'” (2003)
OB: The NY article is the one you kindly put a link to a dozen posts up. There is within terrific reading!