'Let’s listen to the science' – it’s a phrase we often hear coming from the farming world, especially when we find some of the 'anti-brigades' trying to stir up a stushie over the methods and products used in modern-day agriculture.

The use of pesticides and the ability to make use of new bio-technological methods, such as gene editing and splicing, are just two examples where the science is stacked strongly on our side – and where we clutch to the sensible belief that demonstrable facts will unfailingly win the argument.

But increasingly relying on the hard facts – evidenced by such a logical approach isn't enough to win public support – and science is being eclipsed by the emotive and dogmatic beliefs held and promulgated by highly vocal sectors of society.

The close call on the relicensing of glyphosate at the tail end of last year was a case in point, with the majority of farming groups claiming that the industry should continue to be able to use it for the foreseeable future. That view was based on the fact that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence has indicated all along that it is safe.

However, the sound-bite friendly lobbying efforts of groups which had the contrary view almost deprived us of this important chemical. And what should have been a simple rubber-stamping exercise, granting use of the product for a further 15 years, turned instead into a five-year reprieve – in order to gather more evidence on its safety and to give the farming industry time to find a replacement.

And so, while relying on science would seem to be the logical approach, it looks a bit like it might be a difficult line of defence when you realise just how few people actually understand the concepts underlying scientific thinking – or can be bothered to find out.

This fact was hammered home at a recent meeting of the Scottish Society of Crop Research in a talk given by environmental campaigner, Mark Lynas.

If the name rings a bell some place, you might be aware that Lynas was one of the founders of the anti-GM movement back in the 1990s – and had been proud to both take part in and organise the attacks which saw trial plots in various regions of the UK pulled up or otherwise destroyed.

However, the author and broadcaster changed sides in the debate over genetic modification after he 'discovered' scientific methodology a few years ago.

He was the man who famously issued a fulsome apology to the farming and scientific communities at the Oxford Farming Conference in 2013 for his previous actions in tearing up GM crops and the role he played in demonising the technology, to its long-term detriment.

Explaining his change of mind, he said that at the turn of the century his campaigning and writing had moved to focus on global warming. As part of this, he found himself investigating the prevalence of climate change deniers amongst the far right in the US who refused to believe that human activity was a major player in driving climate change.

Part of this investigation involved working with climate scientists, where opinion is almost totally stacked in favour of human influence playing a major role in the phenomenon. This led him to look into how the scientists came to their conclusions – and he decided to learn more about scientific methodology, where evidence is logically scrutinised and conclusions drawn and tested.

Now Lynas is obviously an intelligent man – but even with a university degree under his belt, he had never actually had any grounding in how science works, or how it relies on hard evidence, academic research and peer review.

When he finally understood the validity that such a rigorous approach gives to the findings of scientists, it not only convinced him of the truth of climate change – but began to sow seeds of doubt in some of the claims which his own anti-GM lobby held as gospel truths.

When he was subsequently asked to run off a standard piece for a national newspaper on the dangers of GM crops, a task which he said he could carry out in about 20 minutes after so much practice, he realised that rather than being based on testable facts, much of the anti-GM lobby’s thinking was based on hearsay, opinion, half-truths and green urban myths.

After investigating the facts with his eyes opened to science, he soon realised that the anti-GM lobby’s approach, backed up by a dogmatic ideology, was effectively thwarting an incredibly useful tool for helping to feed the world.

But Lynas also told the SSCR that while such short-sighted approach might possibly be forgivable in individuals, large organisations, such as Greenpeace and even more so governments, should not be swayed by such specious and populist arguments.

Criticising the Scottish Government for 'hiding behind the ignorance of the general public', he said claims that outlawing GM crops added to the country’s clean, green image were patently false. The denial of the technology was dramatically hindering the development of genetic resistance to pests and diseases and, as a result, forcing ever greater reliance on chemical control methods, he argued.

It will also likely to lead to a brain drain of Scottish researchers working in this field as there was little future in a technology which was all but outlawed by the country’s own government.

On a wider front, he said that a dogmatic anti-science approach is most harmful. For, in any realistic assessment, Scotland and the many other countries adopting a similar approach across the whole of Europe, are unlikely to go hungry because of what Lynas termed this superstitious approach.

However, with new GM work offering plants which are more tolerant to drought or more resistant to pests and diseases, the reluctance to adopt the technology in developing countries, especially many African nations, is leading to needles hunger and malnutrition in large portions of the population.

The most frequently used argument coming from third world governments for a reluctance of uptake is based on the reasoning that 'if it isn’t good enough for European nations, why should it be used by us'. Therefore, the lobbying groups and governments of rich European nations who have shunned GM crops should take responsibility for this suffering.

However, what Lynas’s story highlights is the fact that it might be a bit naïve to think that the public will necessarily be swayed by the evidence and judgements drawn up by science. A bit like learning a foreign language, many in the population think it just takes too much effort to learn the underlying principles – and so they get their opinions, ready packed, from social media.

While it’s true that science doesn’t deal in right and wrong – dealing instead in facts and theories, hypotheses and carefully reviewed research based on experimentation and empirical evidence – it is a key tool for helping mankind make sound and reasoned moral judgements.

But it’s a sad fact that for many, rather than taking the trouble to listen to the voice of science and draw their own conclusion, it’s just as lot less effort to go with the flow and believe what they are spoon-fed daily on Facebook.