Question

what evidence from \why people oppose gmos even though science says they are safe\ supports the assertion that the information in the article explains only scientists’ perspective on gmos? (select all that apply) why people oppose gmos the impact of intuitions and emotions on people’s understanding of, and attitudes towards, gmos has important implications for science education and communication. because the mind is prone to distorting or rejecting scientific information in favour of more intuitive beliefs, simply transmitting the facts will not necessarily persuade people of the safety, or benefits, of gmos. to be sure, some concerns, such as herbicide resistance in weeds and the involvement of multinationals, are not without basis, but they are not specific to gmos. i recently published a paper, with a group of belgian biotechnologists and philosophers from ghent university, arguing that negative representations of gmos are widespread and compelling because they are intuitively appealing

Explanation:

1. Analyze each option:

• Option 1: Talks about implications for science education/communication, not about the article only presenting scientists' perspective.
• Option 2: Explains how the mind reacts to scientific info about GMOs, from a scientific understanding of human cognition related to science communication, which is a scientist - centric view on why people might oppose GMOs (focusing on the scientific take on people's rejection of scientific facts).
• Option 3: Addresses the validity of some concerns, not about the article's perspective being only scientific.
• Option 4: Mentions the author's paper with biotechnologists (scientists) and philosophers, and the argument is about why negative representations of GMOs are compelling (from a scientific/academic - scientist - involved) perspective, showing the article's content is from a scientist - led (with philosophers) academic work's perspective.

Answer:

B. Because the mind is prone to distorting or rejecting scientific information in favour of more intuitive beliefs, simply transmitting the facts will not necessarily persuade people of the safety, or benefits, of GMOs.
D. I recently published a paper, with a group of Belgian biotechnologists and philosophers from Ghent University, arguing that negative representations of GMOs are widespread and compelling because they are intuitively appealing.