In the two previous chapters, the particularities of the Rothamsted GM wheat trials were examined along their technological, appropriative and ideological dimensions. Apart from issues referring directly to the field trials, broader pertinent topics of the wider GM controversy were also broached. These broader issues are now further explored in a critical discussion of the GM debate regarding its current status, distinct characteristics and prospects.

The GM Debate as a Case of Science vs. Politics?

Not only in the popular media, but also among academic, political and economic circles, the GM debate is often portrayed as a case of science against politics; that is, as an instance where scientific evidence about a technological breakthrough is facing opposition from value- based considerations and nonscientific criteria (Ammann and Kuntz 2016; BASF 2014; James Hutton Institute 2014; Kinchy 2012; National Farmers’ Union 2014; Späth 2015; Syngenta 2014; The Wall Street Journal 2010). Within this binary interpretative scheme, the dominant processes of politicization and scientization are identified as unacceptable practices and are respectively anathematized by GM advocates and skeptics alike. On the one hand, the politicization of the regulatory system is condemned as unwarranted political interventionism in a procedure that should otherwise be based purely on scientific evidence; a recurring criticism we came across during the discussion of the EU authorization process and the application of the precautionary principle. The scientization of the debate on (ag)biotech, on the other hand, refers to the tendency to separate a controversy from its social context and transform it into a closed debate among scientific experts. This is done on the assumption that science and scientists are “the best possible arbiters of technological controversies because they are assumed to produce objective, value- neutral assessments that do not favor one social group over another” (Kinchy 2012, 2). As such, the scientization of the debate, in essence, demands that politicians ratify expert opinion and citizens to remain uninvolved during the decision- making process.

For the GM controversy to rightfully qualify as a case of scientific innovation contra political decision- making, the following three assumptions must hold true. First, the political field should exhibit policies that predominantly deter innovation. Second, there should be consensus within the scientific community on the safety and benefits of GMOs. Third, scientists should remain uninvolved with ideological beliefs and vested interests.