Posted by David Strong, member of DEA Management Committee

In recent days the Premier of SA has announced that the moratorium on genetically modified crops will continue. Moratoriums have been lifted in other states and in Victoria Sir Gustav Nossal a member of DEA’s Scientific Advisory Committee has supported their production. Clearly there are differing scientific opinions about the environmental health and safety of Gm food crops. One of the difficulties in making assessments is the lack of independent evidence because much of the scientific data comes from the companies producing Gm species. Recently there have been examples of possible suppression and misrepresentation of scientific information. One such example is listed by ISIS at   http://www.i-sis.org.uk/politiciansDenounceGMOTricks.php  This was an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, UK, 28 November 2007 introduced by a UK ex-environment minister, the Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher.

“That this House regrets the continuing attempts to silence or misrepresent scientists whose research indicates possible human health problems from GM crops, as in the case of Dr Irina Ermakova who was misled by the editor of Nature Biotechnology into submitting an article to the journal to be published under her name, with the article in fact published under the editor's name with criticisms by four well-known GM supporters not seen by Dr Ermakova prior to publication; deplores the continuing efforts by an employee of the Canadian Government, Shane Morris, to close down websites in the UK and Republic of Ireland which have, along with Dr Richard Jennings of Cambridge University, said that research which claimed that consumers prefer GM sweetcorn published by this employee and others and given an Award for Excellence, is a flagrant fraud; and calls on the Government Chief Scientist to protect the integrity and objectivity of science by reasserting the right of scientists to have their views published by journals without underhand interference by journal editors, and for the Chief Scientist to encourage journal editors to withdraw papers they have published which subsequently turn out to be grossly misleading or even fraudulent”.

 
by David Shearman

Summary
This paper was written in 2002 soon after DEA was formed and was intended as a summary of the reasons for our formation.

This article analyses the psychological and ideological mechanisms which impede doctors and the community from making appropriate responses to the many impending world crises. It is important to examine how these mechanisms have affected the conservation movement because in seeking sustainable health and wellbeing, we must teach and lobby for the maintenance of the global environment, the biosphere. Denial is caused by the size of the problem in question and the individual’s perceived inability to do anything about it. The ideology of economic growth and increasing individualism leads to antagonism towards environmentalists who work for community values and the preservation of the commons. The medical profession may counter some of these impediments by using its standing to facilitate its access to those in power and by setting personal examples in sustainable behaviour. Medical organisations that demonstrate a lack of self-interest will play a key role in effecting change.

We recommend you read this article from the Australian Psychological Society. It provides explanation of common reactions to severe environmental problems particularly climate change, it explores the mindset to stay involved with the issue, it offers advice about changing your own behaviour and encouraging others to do the same!

http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/climate/

Many of us will be familiar with most of the reactions of our colleagues to our suggestions,they can be indifferent or even hostile, but in furthering our educational role we have to learn to deal with them.

by David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith
Praeger, Westport, Connecticut. London

On its track record democracy is not going to act quickly enough and with sufficient intent to stem climate change . Whatever we do as individuals the big decisions have to be made by governments. The endless debate has to be translated into action. Our advocacy on climate change issues has to move forward to address methods of achieving change in goverance. These are the themes of this multidisciplinary text.
David Shearman 

Publisher's Description

Population control remains the single most important measure in the long term control of green house emissions, yet the right to have as many children as one wishes remains enshrined in liberal democracy. The issue was brought home to me when I heard a short interview on the ABC RN Science Show. Robin Williams having had a series of climate change  ‘heavies’ on the Show decided to have a younger generation view point. This was a young conservationist with an award for her work. She made many good points about improving communication between scientists, public and government when she spoke at the Ecological Society of Australia. Several speakers had indicated that at least one solution to climate change may be to have fewer children. Robyn Williams embellished this point, stating that having two children instead of three cuts a family's carbon emissions by the equivalent of 620 return flights from London to New York. In response the young conservationist said.