Nature - autonomous learning

14 strange naturesFigure 1.2 Knowledges of natureOn this basis, it might be thought that academic understandings of natureare ‘special’ because they aim for objectivity and are rigorously arrived at.In this view, then, what non-academic organisations normally do is simplyuse and report the ‘facts’ or ‘truths’ about nature disclosed by academicresearchers.The suggestion here is that these organisations are but ‘relays’,bowing down before the altar of academic understandings of the naturalworld.But life is not that simple. To begin with, researchers in the same ordifferent academic disciplines may fundamentally disagree in their analysesof phenomena that are deemed wholly or partly natural. Global warmingis a current case in point. Some atmospheric scientists still resist the ideathat a natural ‘greenhouse effect’ has been exacerbated by the underregulatedemission of airborne pollutants. Still others disagree profoundlyabout the likely effects of global warming. Academic disputes aside,non-academic organisations often have their own agendas or are forced tosimplify the often-complex information academic researchers produce.An infamous case is the research of Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai made headlinesin 1998 because of his research into the effects of genetically modifiedfoods. In that year a British current-affairs programme (World in Action)reported Pusztai’s unpublished study showing that rats consuming GMpotatoes experienced unusual physiological changes. Unsurprisingly,the many environmental groups who were anti-GM foods seized uponPusztai’s findings, while the pro-GM lobby sought to undermine hismethods and even his character (see Box 1.3). In short, Pusztai’s researchbecame a battlefield, with different interest groups selectively depictinghis findings. Finally, it’s worth remembering that the legitimacy of ‘expertknowledge’ has been publicly called into question in recent years. To