Should credible #journalism ignore rifts in #scientists’ views on #safety of #GMOs? Join the debate: http://shar.es/I9M8Y #GM
-
-
Replying to @SciDevNet
@SciDevNet- credible journalists recognize there is as much rift among scientists on GMO safety as there is among climate science on warming1 reply 3 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AgBioWorld
@AgBioWorld has anyone measured either of these - is it fair to compare them and claim there is an equal amount of rift?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SciDevNet
@SciDevNet Yes, if you ask all those credible scientists behind 2000+ studies vouching for safety of#GMO food and many science academies2 replies 2 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AgBioWorld
@AgBioWorld Serious journalist should review balance of evidence, not simply listen to the din of rhetoric.@SciDevNet2 replies 4 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @calestous
Yes indeed. “
@calestous:@AgBioWorld Serious journalist shld review balance of evidence, not simply listen to din of rhetoric.@SciDevNet”1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CamiDRyan
@DocCamiRyan
@calestous@AgBioWorld How does a journalist 'review balance of evidence' - is he/she an expert? What constitutes a 'review'?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SciDevNet
@SciDevNet See ----> Impartiality and accuracy of@BBC#science coverage http://bbc.in/1bXFmVq @DocCamiRyan@AgBioWorld1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @calestous
@calestous@BBC @DocCamiRyan@AgBioWorld and yet the BBC comes under fire for giving space/time to climate sceptics... and defends its moves1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@SciDevNet It was not about giving space but about handling evidence. @BBC @DocCamiRyan @AgBioWorld
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.