This research question applies to the area that I intend to study in the future. My major is focused on environmental geoscience. GMOs potential threat to the environment and our health is my main concern, however, there are other facets that have my attention. One focus I have in mind is Monsanto. This is a company that is mass-producing genetically modified seeds in an exploitative way. I also want to look at socioeconomic effects that this could have. Furthermore, I want to look at potential changes that could be implemented in order to hinder these effects. I think flaws in policy and the overbearing power of corporations, like Monsanto, are a key problem towards progress. I don't consider myself a diehard environmentalist, but I do believe we have a responsibility to be stewards of our environment. Following this belief, my research question is in line with my values. I haven't done any formal research regarding this, but I am loosely familiar with the subject, as well as interested. I am qualified to write about this because it is in line with my interest. I will look at data and come to a rational conclusion, regardless of my personal stance on the issue.


The article starts off with the goal to look at public opinions and knowledge of GMOs. Then it goes on to discuss some of these views, backing valid points and debunking standard opinions that aren't backed by any evidence. The main evidence it uses to back its claim is the lack of evidence behind any one point. The general idea is that GMOs are terrible in all aspects for the public. While this is not true, there are some serious concerns surrounding GMOs. The values of this article are geared towards truth. It wishes to dispel any unsubstantiated notions about GMOs, for better or worse. Its tone allows it to speak to both sides of the issue. Claire Marris works for the French National Institute of Agronomy Research. I would say she is supremely qualified to write about this topic. Not only is it her field, her perspective as a researcher leads to honest and straight forward presentation of facts.




This article reports the finding of some research carried out by some scientists working for the International Journal of Biological Sciences. The article is written scientifically and aims to address some issues concerning GMOs effects. It looks at known facts about GMOs, then delves deeper. In their finding, the researchers find how insufficient tests are to determine is GMOs are harmful to peoples health. They conclude that the tests are not efficient for several reasons. The initial tests lacked depth, versatility, and reproducibility. The main interest and stake of the article pertain to the scientific world and its influence on big business. Monsanto is the target in the article, and the researches are looking closely to see if what the corporation presents is true. The consensus is weary at best. The writers and researches, I believe, have credibility due to the nature of their work. As scientist they simply test and then report results. It is a fairly incorruptible standpoint. There is no bias in science done well.



The central claim of the article is that, GMOs can be potentially harmful in a few ways and we need to be ware of this and ultimately act. We must act to hold responsible parties accountable for any damages to the environment, health of people, or socioeconomic well being of the world. The article cites several instances where policy failed to do so. It also cites instances where corporations like Monsanto sue simple farmers over intellectual property rights. The farmer didn't even know he had been using their seeds. Furthermore, the article continues and offers some ideas for progress, looking to a policy in Switzerland and a good first step. The values of this article are heavily geared toward the environment. The author cares about the planet and wants to do something about GMOs. The author is a professor at the University of London. His specialty is in environmental law, which makes the subject matter his cup of tea.

Feasibility of Question

My research question is competent for a couple reasons. It is arguable for both sides, because there is either or insufficient evidence that can be used to argue for or against my point. For example, some would advocate greatly for GMOs, whereas some are starkly opposed to them. Both sides have their points to make, making the issue debatable. My sources are generally in line with my perspectives. I believe in taking care of the environment, and would enjoy looking at how the issue may be handled. I may be able to narrow my research question down to something more specific, if I continue to do research.
