Sullivan's Research Project for Paper on Globalization and GMO Wheat

Writing the proposal

General reading

Beginning more focused research

I knew there were stories in the Forum, so I paid for a press pass and began searching their archives:

I came up with list of articles that appeared in the Fargo Forum from June to July, 2004, on the GMO wheat controversy in ND.

Next I started interviewing people involved with the local case:

• Notes from an interview with Dr. Kenneth Grafton, Director of NDSU Ag Experiment Station and Dean of the College of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Natural Resources, about Rough Rider Wheat.
• Notes from an interview with Dale Zetocha, Director of the NDSU Research Foundation.
• Notes from an interview with Becky Koch, Director of Ag Communication.
• Notes from an interview with Duane Hauck, Director of NDSU Extension Service.

During these interviews, I collected some documents that I might be able to use as primary documents for rhetorical analysis:

• brochure titled Bringing New Technologies to Wheat
• brochure describing NDSU Extension Service
• brochure on Agricultural Biotechnology
• Coexistence Group's Best Management Practices Report.

Broadening my background again

Next, I decided to do more background reading on GMOs, so I went to the NDSU library, pulled up a few references and went to the stacks to browse the books. I checked out the following books and skimmed them during the next couple weeks.

Hart, Kathleen. Eating in the Dark: America's Experiment with Genetically Engineered Food. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.

I think Hart is probably opposed to GMOs. At the very least she is opposed to the widespread release of GM food in the U.S. without labeling. She calls this America's experiment with GE foods, no consent forms having been signed. It seems to be a study of how the FDA approves food for release; and it claims that it the FDA is biased in favor of the large producers of GM seeds. It is a well documented study, sort of a thorough investigation of the development of the FDAs practice.

This book is overtly opposed to biotechnology. Kneen argues that the biotech industry is really and industry of death, killing off all unwanted life and producing moncultures. The second chapter analyzes the rhetoric of GM companies, particularly their arguments based on the "need to feed the world." I haven't read the rest of the book, but it is very readable. I suppose I like it because it sort of preaches to the choir in my case. I hope to find time to read it when I have more time.

McHughen says that he does not intend to preach in his book but to teach. Motivated by what he perceives to be the dysfunctional state of public debate in England over GM foods, he argues that the GM debate has to be elevated, and that can be done only by "acquiring factural foundations" (3). "Science provides the bedrock granite" (3). He wants to "kickstart a real informed and vigorous public debate" (3). He has a primer chapter on molecular genetics, aimed, it would seem at an high school reader, and another chapter on how food gets from the farm to the table, again introductory. As the book goes on, McHughen takes up several issues related to GMOs and food, and the chapters take on polemic overtones. For instance, in chapter 6, he brings up several issues, describing public concerns and claiming that these concerns spring largely from ignorance. McHughen supports biotechnology, downplaying public concerns about GMOs and belittling the benefits of organic foods. For instance, he says, "From my perspective, both GM and organic production have been around long enough to conclude there is no inherent danger in either one, but specific products of either may be hazardous" (236). So, although he initially positions himself as being unbiased, his biases do emerge as the book goes on. Nevertheless, the book is a good introduction to the issues associted with the controversy.

This book is an anthology of readings about GM issues and agriculture. It seems to be a textbook, aimed most likely at agriculture students. Part I contains several scholarly research articles analyzing GMO benefits and costs. Many of these articles appear to have been published in scientific journals and require either a motivated reader or a specialist reader. Part 2 is called "perspectives on the controversies." These essays are less opague to the interested reader and would be of interest to an educated lay person. There are six subtopics in part 2: farm perspectives, government perspectives, developing country perspectives, environmental perspectives, consumer issues (safety and labeling), and life sciences industry. Part 3 is called special topics, and it contains 4 essays: one on the history of ag biotech, one on genetic modification technology, one on Bt corn and the Monarch, and one on the beef hormone dispute between the U.S. and E.U.

This book is the most overt in its support of GM food of any of the books I surveyed. From the very beginning, he takes on the opposition, arguing that organic foods are no safer than GM foods and criticizing those who protest GM foods. In chapter 3, he offers four perspectives on food--a pretty good chapter. He describes naturalist (such as Greenpeace), Egalitarians (such as Rifkin), globalist (who want to promote globalized economies), progressives (who hail new inventions). At one point he summarizes his views of Jeremy Rifkin, whom he characterizes as a sensationalist and a gadfly (82 ff.). Similarly, he criticizes Vandana Shiva and Wendell Berry for simplistic thinking and distortion (194-197).

This book looks like a book that could be used as a reader in an advanced composition class focusing on GM foods as a topic. The editors have pulled together several interesting essays, both pro and con, about specific issues: golden rice, ethics in agriculture, religion, labeling, law, food safety and substantial equivalence, risk assessment and public perception, precautionary principle, developing countries, environmental impacts. This looks like one of the best books of the lot because it has readible essays by noted researchers and scholars on both sides of the issue.

This book is a book about ethics using biotechnology and food as a case in point. Thompson analyzes the ethical issues of the case, first describing the presumptive case for biotechnology and then exploring the case under the categories of unintended consequences, the ethics of consent, animal health and welfare, environmental impact, social consequences, property rights, religious and metaphysical opposition, and communication, education, and trust. The book employs ethical theory heavily and so is as much a challenging introduction to ethics as to the issue of biotechnology. He explores risk assessment, public engagement, questions of responsibility, and the public's trust or distrust of science and scientific authority. He seems to be a cautioussupporter of biotechnology, but he warns scientists that they need to get out of their "laboratory cocoons" and address public concerns (238).

Writing the first draft

Also, as I added information to the first draft from these interviews, I decided to compile articles from the Fargo Forum on the case, and I began integrating them into the paper. Finally, the first draft was complete and ready to send to the conference planners for the first read. Here is a copy of the first draft of my paper, completed January 15, 2005.

Formatting the paper and changing the documentation style

Early in February, Feb. 2 to be exact, I had the chance to put the paper into the format required for the conference proceedings and to shift the citations to their reference system. When I compose, I always double space my papers and use MLA documentation style. But the proceedings for this conference has a different documentation system and they want all the papers formatted the same way so that they can compile the book without having to do a lot of the formatting work. Here is a copy of the formatted version of my paper. Although my original paper had not yet come back from the reviewers, I sent the formatted version to the conference planner, thinking that she might need to see it formatted as she began planning the proceedings. Mean time, other panelists had sent me papers, and I began reading them.

Revising after feedback

On Feb. 17, the conference planner sent me an email with suggestions for revision from reviewers. Basically, they wanted me to move a statement from my last paragraph to the first, play down the globalization, retitle the paper, cut it dramatically, and format it (the reviewer hadn't received the formatted version yet). I was happy to get their comments for a couple reasons. I knew the paper was too long to read at the conference, and I thought I had enough material for a full article in a refereed journal like Technical Communiation Quarterly. Cutting this version would allow me to revise the larger version and submit it elsewhere. (A refereed journal counts more in the world of academia than a reviewed proceedings entry). So I revised the paper, trying to adopt as many suggestions from my reviewer as possible. The final version of the paper was less than half the length of the original, the narrative of the case was cut dramatically, and the focus for the tech comm audience was clearly defined.

Publication and Spin Offs

The paper appeared in 2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Proceedings as an electronic publication (click here to see it). Then, Peter Kastberg, from Denmark, saw the abstract of the paper and sent me an invitation to publish a variation of the study in Hermes. And Nicole Amare invited me to publish a variation focusing on teaching the case in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. I have responded to both that I will.

In the meantime, more information comes to my attention. I attended Crop Biotechnology Update Conference in Fargo on September 21-22, 2005. While listening to discussion, I heard the following arguments in favor of bio technology. I also met some North Dakota wheat farmers who are eager to see GM wheat be released. They have a website at http://www.growersforwheatbiotechnology.org/. Early in September, 2005, a conference on co-existance was held in Bologna, Italy. Here is a press release about the co-existence conference.