Scientists play an important role in the country's development, and their professional advice and contributions often promote the take-off of China's scientific and technological undertakings. However, the recent incident of 61 academicians jointly supporting the industrialization of genetically modified crops has aroused widespread doubts and reflections in the society.
Among the 61 academicians, there are many authoritative figures such as Zhong Nanshan, a respiratory expert, Zhang Qisheng, a wood processing expert, and Xia Xianzhu, a veterinary scientist. They jointly signed a letter arguing that genetically modified crops are safe and reliable, which can help solve problems such as food security and reduce the use of pesticides.
However, a question worth pondering is: When did these academicians on the mainland begin to get too involved in the field of industrial economy? How can scientists who specialize in these specialties judge that genetically modified crops are harmless?
Academicians are the country's scientific and technological leaders and think tanks, and their professional level and academic status are beyond doubt. However, on some complex cross-cutting issues, it is worth thinking twice about whether we can make accurate judgments based on individual strength. Genetically modified crops involve agriculture, food safety, environmental impact and many other aspects, and it is necessary to comprehensively weigh the pros and cons, and systematic and comprehensive research and evaluation are needed.
The questions of some netizens are also worth paying attention to: "Have all these 61 academicians really eaten genetically modified food? Have they been separated from the masses for too long to truly understand the misgivings of the people?" Indeed, staying in the theoretical circle and academic circles for a long time can easily lose the personal experience of the people's lives. Therefore, it is very necessary for experts to be more down-to-earth and listen to public opinion with an open mind before making major proposals.
Of course, we must also look at this issue objectively and rationally. Out of good intentions for the country, the academicians hope to achieve food security on the mainland through new technologies, which is indeed admirable. It is not appropriate to deny it blanketly, the key is to do a more comprehensive examination of the evidence on this basis, weigh the pros and cons, and brainstorm ideas.
And the masses who question this sensitive topic are also justified. What is the long-term impact of long-term consumption of genetically modified crops in Europe and the United States? Are there any hidden dangers that are difficult to verify for the time being? This really deserves our cautious treatment. Moreover, in the current era of the flood of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, should we take the road of sustainable development and return to green and organic agriculture, instead of blindly pursuing high-yield crops such as "genetically modified"?
There is some truth to these doubts, and experts must satisfactorily answer them before calling for the industrialization of GMOs. In fact, some people have put forward a seemingly extreme, but very practical suggestion: the children of 61 academicians should try to eat genetically modified foods for three generations, as long as they are healthy, they can be promoted on a large scale across the country.
Although this suggestion is indeed a bit extreme, it expresses a basic expectation of the public from authoritative experts: the solutions you advocate must first be practiced in your own hands, and be verified harmlessly in the long term, not just on paper. Only by leading by example can we win the sincere support of the broad masses of the people.
This turmoil has once again reminded us that even if experts have good intentions, they can easily fall into the predicament of being questioned if they lack a comprehensive and systematic scientific assessment and respect for the general public opinion. Relying on the authority of names alone will not help, and it is best for experts to remain humble and low-key, and to be humble and humble to solve their doubts to the public, and to win the public's trust.
The most important thing is that for any major issues that may affect the national economy and people's livelihood, we should proceed in an orderly and step-by-step manner, and we must not be in a hurry. The opinions of authoritative experts are important, but they must go through extensive social deliberation and fully listen to the opinions of all walks of life, especially the personal feelings and demands of ordinary people.
Only in this way can the suggestions put forward by the experts be more convincing, the policy decisions will be more popular with the people, and the development of science and technology will be able to truly benefit the people. Looking forward to the future, let us hope that under the principle of scientific democracy and democratic science, experts, scholars and the common people will be able to work together to promote the innovation and development of the motherland's scientific and technological undertakings.