Sense about Science has started a campaign ‘Don’t Destroy our Research’ in support of Rothamsted scientists who are looking to defend their GM wheat trial from activists seeking to destroy it. Roland Jackson of the British Science Association suggests that this is an unhelpful overreaction and will further polarise the debate.
I can see both sides here – I agree that upping the confrontation with protestors through the media may indeed have this effect. Though I am sure Sense about Science also feel that by almost playing the protestors at their own game, they are showing the other side of the story in clearer and unambiguous terms. That by highlighting the issues more prominently, demonstrating that large numbers of credible people support GM and engaging the media again in articulating the ‘side of science’ in this debate, it will stimulate the public to look again at the issues and update their views in the light of new benefits, needs and approaches to GM.
However, perhaps that this method is a bit blunt and perhaps unlikely to do this on its own. It must, as Roland suggests, be accompanied by much better quality information from the scientists and the funders to acknowledge concerns, about the rationale, the systems in place to assess the security and efficacy of the potential approach, etc etc.
Don’t do more dialogue on views!
However, I am not sure that public dialogue earlier would be anything but yet another ‘horse has bolted’ exercise unless the option to close down the trial was really on the table, which I bet it’s not.
We recently analysed all the major dialogues in recent years on emerging technologies (though not GM) with a view to finding out what they expect from business in relation to the development and use of these new technologies, of which GM could be considered similar. We found a very consistent view from the public – in summary, why are you doing it, what is the benefit in the round over existing solutions, what are the potential risks and hazards to people and the environment, what systems do you have in place to address potential problems and how transparent are you about problems and how adaptable are your systems to spot negative issues as they arise.
But do respond clearly to concerns
So to do more ‘public’ dialogue to ‘explore people’s views’ yet again as Roland suggests, is I would say unnecessary, stakeholders are very very clear about what their concerns are and unless the trial was cancelled would simply be an ineffective PR exercise. However, to carefully take each of the issues which the public and the stakeholders such as farmers, NGOs etc, have expressed concern about (and the literature and websites are awash with info on that), and then to go back to the stakeholders, not just the public themselves, and say – ‘you expressed concern about these areas, this is what we have done and are doing, what concerns still remain and how can we address them’ is a good use of time and tax payers money.
It is certainly clear from the Rothamsted website that they have thought very carefully about these very issues and sought to address them. Perhaps they tried to engage others on this, but I am sure those with entrenched views will feel they are trying to be co-opted and decline to attend.
Then, for example, the scientist would have had much better answers for the farmer in the Today programme, perhaps even the farmer would have felt that his concerns were listened to, and addressed, and wouldn’t have felt the need to go on to the Today programme. In this way then, the public at large, and stakeholders, have much better quality information with which to form their own opinion.
But if activists remain unconvinced – then what?
However, let’s say that the GM protestor is not going to consider that their questions have been answered as they are fundamentally against this type of science – and they try to destroy the crops anyway, regardless of whether the public are ‘on the side’ of the scientist or not. Then what, apart from better security?
I’ve saved my most ‘controversial’ view until last. So if indeed the safety concerns about a technology have been listened to and addressed or minimised; that this application of GM, for example, would bring us a valuable new strain of wheat which the world needs and can’t get any other way – just maybe what we also need is a more sophisticated and better PR machine for science/GM/research? Do we not owe it to the public to give them much better quality information, accessible in better ways on the things their money has paid for?
So scientists and funders need to communicate better, and make their assumptions, opinions and methodologies clearer, but also I think there should be a GM&Me website like our Nano&me. This would be where people who are interested could access information which is, as far as possible, independent and impartial, to help them make their own mind up, to explore the issues and be a hub for dialogue and debate. This isn’t really all PR, but if done right is a genuine attempt to allow those who take these decisions to at least showcase how and why decisions are made in the context of thoughtful information on issues in the round curated by an independent party.
That’s what these ‘Technology Assessment’ type bodies are called on to do and I think provide a valuable service. But, like the Danish Board of Technology, and our Quango’s they are being dismantle all over the world – at the very same time as public dialogues like the ones we analysed say that they want independent oversight of government, science and business in this area.