In what ways has simplification and polarization distorted the genetic engineering debate according to Margaret Mellon’s chapter, “Savior or Monster?”

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: The prompt asks about how simplification and polarization have distorted the genetic engineering debate, according to Margaret Mellon’s chapter, “Savior or Monster?”

Option analysis:
- Option 1: "The focus on productivity and the faith in new technologies have contributed to problems of toxic pollution, loss of soil fertility, production of climate gases, loss of pollinators, disruption of the nitrogen cycle and destruction of coastal ecosystems". This option lists a series of environmental and ecological issues associated with modern agriculture and technology. While these concerns are real and may be discussed in the broader debate, the statement does not explicitly frame these concerns as distortions caused by simplification and polarization. It reads as a causal claim about consequences of technology, rather than a meta-comment about how the debate itself is distorted by rhetorical simplifications. Therefore, it does not directly capture Mellon’s central claim about distortions arising from oversimplified or polarized discourse.

- Option 2: "All of these are simplifications and polarizations that distort the debate over genetic engineering". This option directly asserts that the listed items (and similar arguments) are examples of the distortions Mellon identifies in the debate. It aligns with Mellon’s framing, which critiques the debate for being reduced to black-and-white narratives and for using polarized rhetoric that oversimplifies complex issues. As a comprehensive summary statement, this option encapsulates the core meta-claim about distortion via simplification and polarization.

- Option 3: "Critics of genetically engineered crops are labeled Luddites and arguments against the technology are called emotional and sidelined as illegitimate". This choice points to a specific rhetorical move—dismissing critics as Luddite and relegating their arguments to emotion. This is indeed a recognizable distortion in polarized debates. However, by itself it captures only one facet of Mellon’s critique and does not convey the full scope, which includes multiple distortions beyond this labeling, such as overreliance on productivity claims or ignoring alternative approaches. As a standalone statement, it’s accurate as a distortion example but incomplete in representing the entire argument Mellon makes about the debate’s simplifications.

- Option 4: "The biotechnology debate loses sight of the fact that genetic engineering is not the only way to improve agricultural crops and animals. Classical breeding, marker-assisted breeding, and agroecology have been scientifically proven to be superior to GE in improving agronomic traits across the breadth of crop varieties". This option argues from a comparison of approaches and their proven efficacy. While it reflects a valid concern in discussions about technology choices, it describes a substantive position on agricultural methods rather than a characterization of the debate’s rhetorical distortions. It does not directly articulate how simplification and polarization distort the debate itself, though it could be used as a counterpoint within a less polarized dialogue. Consequently, it does not function as a direct descriptor of the distortions Mellon emphasizes.

Synthesis across options: Option 2 claims that all the listed items are examples of distortions caused by simplification and polarization, which best captures Mellon’s overarching critique of how the debate is framed. Other options describe legitimate concerns or specific rhetorical moves but do not as clearly articulate the comprehensive meta-level distortion Mellon attributes to the debate as a whole.

Thus, option 2 best aligns with Mellon’s framing of distortion in the genetic engineering debate, as it explicitly characterizes the nature of the problem (simplifications and polarization) and asserts that all listed elements exemplify that distortion.

FSTA02H3 F LEC01 Quiz 2

In what ways has simplification and polarization distorted the genetic engineering debate according to Margaret Mellon’s chapter, “Savior or Monster?”

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

30. Microbes are key to genetic engineering which of the following?

32. How long have we had transgenic food crops?

Recombinant DNA technology has which one of the following advantages?

"Any technique that seeks to manually add DNA to an organism, with the goal of making that organism display traits it would not normally display." This best defines ______.