Tuesday 4th Feb, 2:15 pm
Greenpeace is a science-based campaigning organization whose purpose is to stand up for the environment. We detect and understand the environmental problems we face through science, and depend on science and technology to provide solutions to environmental threats. Greenpeace is thus in the (not-for-profit) business of communicating science. In his presentation, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, David Ritter, will outline Greenpeace’s approach to science communication, drawing out some of the tensions and overlap between public science and public campaigning.
Karl Haro von Mogel says
With all due respect, Greenpeace is not a science-based organization. It is a political organization that will use science when it aligns with their political views, and will ignore and even actively destroy science when it inconveniently contradicts their views.
In 2011, two members of Greenpeace Australia broke into the CSIRO research facility to destroy plots of genetically engineered wheat, while wearing Greenpeace logos, and proudly filming themselves. This video was posted on the Greenpeace Australia website, again, proud of their accomplishment of destroying rightful and promising scientific research. Prior to this event, Greenpeace released a plagiarized letter to CSIRO protesting the wheat experiment, and denied it. The two individuals who were involved in this act of vandalism were convicted, and fined for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage that they caused, and Greenpeace picked up the bill, clearly responsible for this act. Here are several stories on these events:
In my opinion, inviting the CEO of Greenpeace Australia to speak about
science communication is shameful and does not further the cause of
science communication. In fact, Greenpeace works against science
communication when it serves their political views. Unless David Ritter is prepared to unequivocally say that vandalizing experimental plots of genetically engineered crops like this is wrong and that his organization will not do it again, I think that giving him this platform will not benefit science or science communication.
Karl Haro von Mogel says
An additional link to an article by a journalist who echoes these concerns:
Benjamin Edge says
I wonder how anti-GMO activists would ever get their hands on experimental GM wheat? And the Kuaui activists wonder why seed companies would object to having to disclose the location of their GM research plots?
I am also interested to know how the destruction of scientific research work is an “approach to science communication”. Or is it part of the “business” side in order to raise funds for ongoing anti-science behavior?
Chris Kelly says
Have I skipped a couple of months, is it April 1?