What activism may really be about

Reading social media  for information is getting to be like searching for diamonds in a dung heap. Once lift one's eyes from that obsession, and one can find signs of intelligent life elsewhere: such as this from Terry Daynard's blog.

The piece is one of the most insightful I've ever seen on the motives of those people who are anti-science in general, and anti-biotechnology in particular. Daynard has done what I know I should do, and what I find increasingly hard to do. He has carefully considered the opinions of his opponents.

The conclusion of the article is discouraging, because it suggests that there is little to no hope of finding common ground on this topic. At least, there is little to no hope if scientists go on presenting mountains of evidence for their position, because this may really not be about the science at all.

I have written many times that I'm no friend to anyone's ideology. I regard it as a lazy or self-interested person's substitute for critical thinking. The biotech topic is a good example. Opponents certainly seem to be operating from ideology, and at times some biotech supporters cross the line. The topic also touches a particular piece of my life experience.

Ask most people why not-for-profits or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) exist and they will either come up with an partial answer specific to the ones they know, or no answer at all. The actual, b-school* answer is that they exist to fulfil a mission. However, their great weakness is that they need supporters and money to fulfil that mission. Without constant vigilance at the executive and board level, these organisations are prone to lose sight of the mission, and concentrate on the support and the means of getting that support.

Greenpeace is the NGO I most have in mind here, but it probably applies to several others in this debate. A number of anti-biotech social media pages or blogs come from activist individuals or organisations who have been around for a long time, and who have totally gone round the bend on this weakness: they will get behind any cause du jour as long as it keeps the money rolling in.**

In all these cases, the support tail is wagging the dog so hard that the poor mutt is at risk of a concussion. Daynard makes the Greenpeace position very clear. It's all about keeping the discussion as black and white as possible. Originally, Greenpeace aggression and vandalism had specific objectives besides getting headlines and entertaining the base. It's been noted elsewhere that the vandalism has become the objective.

Knowing this is nice but it changes nothing. NGOs/not-for profits that have become totally means-focused tend to stay on that path until they get to the edge of self-destruction or beyond. It's a question whether the current lot involved with anti-biotech propaganda will destroy themselves before they succeed in destroying the agricultural tools needed to stave off starvation on a global scale. I look for reasons to hope but so far they're elusive.

---------------------------------------------------------

*I took a certificate in not-for-profit management taught at Columbia School of Business. This is one of the lessons that stuck.

** The archetype of this is the March of Dimes. Who remembers that its original mission was a cure for polio? Success in the mission can be a not-for-profit's worst nightmare.