SCOTLAND risked getting a reputation for being “anti-science” because of a “medieval” attitude to genetically modified crops, a minister warned the cabinet in 2002.
LibDem environment minister Ross Finnie also blamed “one or two journalists” for ill-informed public debate on GM.
His comments in April 2002 came as protestors lobbied parliament about a controversial field trial of GM oilseed rape at Munlochy in the Black Isle.
The previous month, organic farmer Donnie MacLeod was jailed for 21 days for contempt after refusing to name accomplices who helped him trample an X in the field in June 2001.
Mr Finnie told cabinet he was concerned the Scottish Executive’s “neutral stance was not understood or effective in the face of strong public concerns” about GM trials.
There was not a risk to public safety, he insisted, yet the public appeared increasingly distrustful of experts, party due to a “general failure to understand scientific processes”.
The minute recorded him saying: “This was part of a large problem faced by those making policy decision on the basis of scientific advice. A ‘mediaeval” approach was being taken in debates, with scientific opinion dismissed.
“Scotland’s efforts to make economic capital from its good name in the scientific field would be compromised if it were to gain a reputation internationally for being anti-science.”
Investigations by committees only legitimised misplaced concerns, Mr Finnie added.
A few weeks later, Mr Finnie returned to the theme, saying the media debate on GM was “dominated by one or two journalists” and there was a “danger” the government would get drawn into an argument with “wider implications for science issues in Scotland”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel