Bulletin October 2006 FESPB Science & Society Debate
A report on the Science & Society debate held at FESPB, Lyon 2006.
Organisers: Sarah Blackford (SEB), Pierre Benoit-Joly (INRA) and Etienne Magnien (Science & Society, DG Research, European Commission).
There was a time when some plant scientists might have looked at their animal/medical counterparts and been thankful that they were not subjected to the kinds of public scrutiny and even confrontation that seemed to be inextricably linked to this area of research. There was also a time when scientists subscribed to the “defecit model” - that the way to get the public on their side was to educate them so that they could understand the science and therefore would be supportive of their technological developments. But after GM, for plant scientists, life would never be the same again.
An article published recently entitled 'Is there a future for GM crops in the UK?' (Nigel Halford, SEB Bulletin, March 2006) shows how drastically life changed for plant scientists during the GM debate. Part of the article reports on scientists being accused of not being active enough in the debate on GM crops.Halford asked whether it would really have made any difference faced with the powerful multinational pressure groups and the press. A selection of accompanying provocative images of anti-GM propaganda served to reinforce his point. Although some countries in the EU have begun to use some GM cultivars, Europe as a whole, still faces Government and citizen opposition to GM similar to that which emerged in the UK in the late 1990s.
With more and more plant scientists wondering what the future will hold for novel plant technologies and looking towards new ways to present them positively to the public, this first Science & Society debate, staged at the FESPB Meeting in Lyon, was timely and very well-attended. Sponsored by the Journal of Experimental Botany and Blackwell Publishing, the session took the format of a discussion forum with our chair, Tom Wakeford, encouraging participation and an exchange of views from the audience. The panel, made up of social scientists, policy experts and plant scientists, offered their perspective on the question of the debate first of all:
Sue Mayer: There is a broader political point associated with the question of this debate - that of a democratic deficit where the public feel excluded and are cynical of the political process associated with technological developments in society. Equally, scientists and politicians would rather 'leave things to the experts', fearing that if the public is allowed to have a voice they would lose some of their power. But the public no longer defer to, or trust, the experts. In order to explore these tensions it will be necessary to identify who the public are and to build partnerships with them (ref 1).
Dirk Inzé: The perception from the plant scientists' point of view is that politicians and the public tend to listen to pressure groups such as Greenpeace. European plant research is suffering because of this. Rational evidence presented by scientists seems to be ignored by the public which is causing European agriculture to become less and less competitive as technological developments are not permitted. The image of plant science has been tainted and may even be affecting the throughput of young people into this field of research. It is time for plant scientists to get organised to increase the status of plant science in Europe. Headway is being made in this respect via EPSO, European Plant Science Organisation, which is promoting plant science (ref 2) and voicing the opinions of plant scientists to the European Commission (ref 3).
Etienne Magnien: Although the GMO negotiation 'went wrong' it is important for plant scientists not to fear negotiation now and in the future. We need to get rid of the drama and go back to the facts. The European Commission can monitor opinions about biotechnology using tools such as statistics, opinion polls, studies by experts. Research has already been conducted to investigate public perceptions of biotechnology in Europe and one report, for example, cites 10 myths often used by stakeholders when making assumptions about public opinion. One important finding was that the mistrust is not with the scientist but with the institution (ref 4).
Pierre-Benoit Joly: Beware not to confuse public opinion (quite a problematic notion!) and public participation. Public participation may be fostered with devices such as the one we experimented on at INRA on GM vine field trials (ref 5). We selected people from the public and charged them to produce a report on whether to go ahead with the trial. The answer which came back was a majority saying 'Yes' but with a proviso that the trial only be used for research/knowledge purposes - not for commerce. The minority opinion was against the field trial, considering it as a 'Trojan horse', since it is very difficult to dissociate one from the other. Clearly citizens are looking for greater transparency from organisations and institutions.
Following the panel briefings a very lively debate was initiated by the chair in which the audience was encouraged to group together to discuss the question (with slightly revised emphasis) 'Should public opinion influence the future of plant science in Europe'. The overwhelming and united answer came back as 'Yes' but it was tempered by some delegates pointing out that a lack of knowledge and understanding by the public was hampering their ability to convince them to accept new technology. This sentiment was also echoed by Inzé who considers that plant scientists should organise themselves more effectively in order to present a common front to engage the public effectively and to lobby for research funding. With cohesive and political arguments and information freely available in the public domain and on websites, it will help to improve the image of plant science on a global scale.
The social and policy panel members were less convinced about the sentiments of the plant scientists and questioned whether a lack of 'specialised scientific understanding' as an obstacle to public acceptance of new technology was really just a myth. As pointed out by Magnien, the public's expectations do not necessarily depend on fact and they are happy to settle with less certain 'conjecture'. Joly reported that many of the mistrust issues faced by institutions are because the public see them as being too positive and overlooking or dismissing potential problems. There seems to be a fine line between scientists selling their research and creating a backlash because of over-optimistic promises. This was particularly evident in poorer communities in countries such as China and India among whom the promise of GM crops addressing poverty had not been realised. Mayer pointed to research which provides evidence that the public tend to ask more wide-ranging questions and are not necessarily informed by the media. They also show scepticism towards those involved in the debates and are aware they each have their own agendas to serve, including the media and pressure groups.
Summing up the debate, Tom Wakeford suggested that, by working together in the future, social, political and scientific stakeholders will be able to provide effective platforms for participation of the public thus democratising influence over decisions made about 'technological progress' in the future. Indeed, such platforms are already in existence such as citizens' juries (ref 6) and other related approaches (ref 7). These discussions were as lively and inclusive as the one we held at FESPB which, from what I heard afterwards, catalysed further discussions during the week. Many thanks to all those involved in the organisation and active participation of this event.
Sarah Blackford
External Affairs
References
1. Mayer and Stirling, 2004. GM crops: good or bad? EMBO reports, vol 5, no. 11, pp 1021 - 1024.
2. EPSO, 2006. European plant science; a field of opportunities. Journal of Experimental Botany, vol 56, no. 417, pp 1699 - 1709.
3. www.epsoweb.org/
4. Marris, Wynne, Simmons and Weldon, 2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe.
www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance/PABE/index.html
5. www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/sci ence-gouvernance/
6. PEALS 2003 The People's Report on GM Crops, PEALS, University of Newcastle. (Download from: www.gmjury.org)
7. Wakeford T 2004 Democratising technology: Reclaiming science for sustainable development, ITDG, UK. (Download from: www.itdg.org/?id=publicgood_paper)
Tom Wakeford is Director of Co-Inquiry at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Institute, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Visiting Fellow, International Institute of Environment and Development, London.
Sue Mayer is Director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit group that monitors developments in genetic technologies from a public interest, environmental protection and animal welfare perspective.
Dirk Inzé is part-time Professor at the Ghent University and Scientific Director of the Department of Plant Systems Biology at the Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology (VIB, Ghent, Belgium).
Pierre-Benoit Joly, economist and sociologist, is Directeur de Recherche at the National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA) in France.
Etienne Magnien is currently head of the unit 'Strategy & Scientific Culture', part of the Science-Society Directorate in DG Research, European Commission.