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 and options restated for clarity: In Margaret Mellon’s chapter, “Savior or Monster?”, which statements describe how simplification and polarization have distorted the genetic engineering debate?

Option 1: '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 common rhetorical move where opponents are caricatured or dismissed rather than engaged with substantively. If Mellon argues that such labeling contributes to distortion by portraying critique as irrational rather than analytical, then this option aligns with the idea that polarization shifts credibility away from legitimate concerns. The statement, therefore, captures a mechanism by which debates become distorted through ad hominem framing rather than addressing evidence.

Option 2: '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 asserts that zeal for higher productivity and technological optimism can obscure or aggravate real environmental and ecological risks. If Mellon discusses externalities and ecological trade-offs associated with widespread GE adoption—such as pollution, soil degradation, greenhouse gas implications, pollinator declines, nutrient cycling disruptions, and ecosystem damage—then this statement accurately reflects a distorted emphasis where benefits are highlighted while costs are downplayed or ignored.

Option 3: '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 claims that the debate narrows to GE as the sole solution, ignoring alternative improvement pathways. If Mellon notes that multiple approaches (classical breeding, marker-assisted approaches, agroecology) can be effective and sometimes preferable in certain contexts, then this option accurately identifies a source of distortion: privileging GE over a broader toolkit and thus oversimplifying the landscape of agricultural innovation.

Option 4: 'All of these are simplifications and polarizations that distort the debate over genetic engineering.' This final choice asserts that the listed items collectively illustrate the kinds of simplifications and polarization Mellon discusses. If each of the previous statements reflects a facet of how discourse can be polarized or simplified—whether through labeling opponents, focusing only on productivity or risks, or omitting other viable approaches—then this option captures the overarching claim that multiple distortions are at play. In other words, the meta-statement functions as a summary of the individual distortions described above.

Now, evaluating why each option is true or false in the context of Mellon’s argument: Option 1 reveals a pattern of dismissive framing that shuts down constructive debate; it would be false only if Mellon argued that such labeling never occurs, which would contradict a common critique about biased discourse. Option 2 identifies environmental and ecological oversights that accompany techno-optimist narratives; it would be incorrect if Mellon argued that productivity focus never masks ecological costs, but typically she would note such distortions. Option 3 highlights the neglect of alternative improvement strategies; this would be incorrect if Mellon maintained that GE is the sole viable path, which would clash with a pluralistic view of agricultural innovation. Option 4 logically follows if Options 1–3 are accurate representations of distortions, since the consolidation of these points into a single statement would express the overall claim Mellon makes about simplifications and polarization.

Across the analysis, the patterns of critique point toward a common theme: each individual claim illustrates a way the debate can be oversimplified or polarized, leading readers to misinterpret the true breadth of the topic. By recognizing these distinct distortions, a reader can appreciate why the comprehensive statement (Option 4) correctly encapsulates Mellon’s warning about reductionism in the genetic engineering discussion.

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 ______.