Attention "Nature" magazine: science and technology are different

Link is to an article at nature.com about whether or not science education increases acceptance of "the field of science," or some such idea. It is assumed in the article that all technology (specifically genetically modified foods), being "scientific," are a necessary good.

Here we blame the editors of Nature, who do this all the time, as do all of the ruling science intelligentsia. But the writer of the article conflates the method of doing science with a knee-jerk, uncritical acceptance of technology for its own sake.

Science is a method. Technology gets used. Being scientifically literate does not entail gee-whiz support of the latest scientist-approved abuse of technology. To suggest that is the case is to pretend that dissent does not exist within the ranks of science, for instance on the issue of genetically modified food, which is legitimately opposed by many actual scientists and everything, on the grounds that irreversible genetic pollution is a very scientific way to screw the environment up even worse.