The upcoming Australian Science Communicators conference is featuring a talk by the CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Here's the abstract (my emphasis):
Greenpeace is a science-based campaigning organization whose purpose is to stand up for the environment. We detect and understand the environmental problems we face through science, and depend on science and technology to provide solutions to environmental threats. Greenpeace is thus in the (not-for-profit) business of communicating science. In his presentation, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, David Ritter, will outline Greenpeace’s approach to science communication, drawing out some of the tensions and overlap between public science and public campaigning.
This is the same science-based organization that made headlines several years ago for destroying government sponsored wheat crops, which as Naturereported, "was part of research into developing genetically modified crop plants with enhanced nutritional value." This is the same science-based organization that has a section on agricultural biotechnology that starts off this way:
How harmful is Genetic Engineering? Is relying on toxic chemicals the only way forward?
Is this the approach to science communication the Greenpeace Australia CEO will outline in his talk?
