Policies on citizens’ safety should be made based on science rather than focusing on dominant views. Climate change is a divisive topic that elicits varied reactions from experts on how to approach it. Proposals have been made to encourage the use of genetically modified seeds, which prove to survive in harsh conditions (Jones, 2017). Based on research, the modified seeds guarantee food security and are safe for human consumption (Clemons & McBeth, 2020). However, the proponents of indigenous plants are against genetic crops based on pesticide content, which is harmful to human beings. The debate draws views on whether rationality should be used in policy adoption.
Advantages and Limitations of Using Rational Approach in Policy Making
Scientific evidence is weighed and presented to help accept or reject biotechnology products. The benefit includes making decisions that are not guided by emotions. Secondly, experts consider evidence in their proposals; thus, their advisory enhances efficiency where less cost is used to achieve a maximum reward (Clemons & McBeth, 2020). However, corporations have been investing money in experts, which raises questions about their independence. They offer them grants for studies to gain favorable opinions about their operations (Clemons & McBeth, 2020). Currently, there is no proof that research results could be compromised. The inconsistency in scientific projections is what is seen as a tool for hire.
Corruption and damaging campaign have the potential of influencing customers’ beliefs. Therefore, we cannot ignore political influence in as much rationality as essential. Organizations use the money to influence specialists’ independence and lobby for their interests (Lipton, 2015). Rationality based on costs and benefits should always prevail in the formulation of standards. Moreover, political actors can appeal to citizens and convince them to embrace their policies without questioning.
Nonprofit Organization’s Approach
I feel that nonprofit organizations are not supposed to use a democratic view in their mission against the consumption of genetically modified crops. My opinion is that consumers are not conversant with the level of damage in the generic plants. Politics on the crops further ignore their benefits and climate changes which causes food shortage. They can invest in a scientific approach by publishing the hazards of the crops. It is necessary to be impartial and articulate both advantages and disadvantages. Finally, persuading consumers must not emphasize emotional appeal but logic.
Why is Chris Inconsistent?
Chris is not consistent in his plan to ensure the seeds are labeled. When he was a student, he argued that people were not supposed to decide independently but be guided by science. He believed involving citizens in climate change would lead to the formation of substandard policies. Alessandra once accused Chris of being used as a tool to propagate undemocratic plans. They fought each other on social media platforms because of their contrary positions. Essentially, Chris has shifted his position to the scientific position because of the lucrative position he holds at the nonprofit organization.
Personal Stand on the Place of Science and Democracy
My personal view is that the role of science and democracy exists exclusively. Scientific studies are essential for corporations to enlist expert endorsement. The research provides evidence on the safety and hazards of implementing certain policies. It is vital because it helps alleviate impending threats that can arise if certain decisions are not made. For instance, the proponents of genetically modified crops argue it is important in addressing food security. In a democracy, I suggest it is important to empower the citizens in the judgment process. Its supporters say consumers are rational beings and should be involved in debates about climatic changes. However, feelings can impair judgment; thus, the democratic model does not lead to excellent conclusions. Science must guide rationality because it separates values from facts.
It is clear that a rational approach is a vital tool for decision-making; however, researchers should declare all their interests to ensure independence. The rational model is important because it contributes to quality decision-making. Money and politics can change the impartiality of experts who wield influence on consumer behavior. Corporations have adopted the use of experts to lobby for their positions, thus, gaining favorable perception from consumers. For instance, companies selling genetically modified seeds enlist researchers who prove the crops are fit for human consumption.
Clemons, R. S., & McBeth, M. K. (2020). Public policy praxis: A case approach for understanding policy and analysis. Routledge.
Lipton, E. (2015). Food industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying. The New York Times. Web.
Jones, B. D. (2017). Behavioral rationality as a foundation for public policy studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 63-75. Web.