|
 The
environment in which the scientific fraternity operates has
become considerably complex. It has increasingly become
technical, regulated, legalistic, and globalized. Superimposed
upon these layers, one finds growing consumerism, awareness
about fragility of the environment, and activism that has become
a global industry in itself. The seed and plant industries have
not escaped these trends and crop biotechnology, specifically
genetically modified crops (GM or GE), have become a major
target for activists, replacing the historic issues of clubbing
seals, hunting whales, DDT, and nuclear power.
Some of these major trends had been foreseen in 1971 by a
noted South African professor in international relations, Mike
Louw. He alerted scientists to the fact that dynamic waves of
scientific revolution need to take into account new awareness of
ethics, social purpose of science and the environment as
mankind’s common heritage. Louw urged scientists to
constructively harness technology in ways that will extend
benefits to all people. He challenged universities to extend
their curricula so as to develop a new generation of scientists
and policy makers who could interact and interrelate on issues
that are inter-disciplinary and that have social impact in an
international context.
Today, we can add to Louw’s challenges the need for
scientists able to communicate with consumers, as well as
scientists brave enough to stand up against campaigns of
misinformation, stage-managed by global activist groups.
The reasons are multifold for the present emotional debates
and consumer resistance to foods derived from GM crops, but the
common denominator seems to be poor communication. Most
governments have been negligent in conducting adequate public
awareness. Technology owners are seen as having vested
interests. Therefore it is up to academic, public and private
scientists, and their associations, to convey factual
information.
Anti-GM activists have had varying degrees of success in
conditioning public opinion by focusing on a specific strategy:
· Establishing an active, rapid response global network.
· Maintaining an extensive database, the factual content of which
may be debatable.
· Attacking only GM crops while avoiding debates on other genetic
technology applications.
· Using arguments with emotional or sensational content.
· Extending “what if” concerns into explicit scares (“GM crops
will kill”)
· Repeating globally the same statements without even amending the
texts.
· Discrediting the regulatory system and scientific reviews
· Narrowing the focus to seven concerns with one auxiliary
challenge:
Ethics and
morality; human health; risks to the environment; traditional
farming systems; intellectual property rights, specifically
patents and indigenous knowledge; dependence on multinationals;
regulatory systems, and the auxiliary rider that the scientist
must ensure zero risk on all concerns raised.
The risk issue is the pivotal element in the debate.
Scientists are trained to consider things on a probability
scale. Some venture into explaining that everything has a risk
such as planes, cars, food poisoning. Such explanations add
fuel to the fire (did they forget Bophal, 9/11 and BSE?). Risk
should be explained as a decision tree approach: hypothesize what if, identify potential risks, analyze
existing data, generate new data, its likelihood of occurring,
its likely impact, and then establish a risk management protocol
under regulatory oversight. The comparator must always be the
existing conventional.
Activists bring a constant, canned message, whereas
scientists start on a divided front: conventional versus organic
versus GM crops. Scientists are trained to critically review
scientific data, therefore, they may present different views to
the public. This was evident during the Zambian debacle in 2002
when the co-mingled maize food aid consignment from the US arrived,
many visiting European and South African activists alleged that
GM maize was poisonous. When scientists were called in, they
presented conflicting views. Therefore, distribution of the
food aid was halted.
Activists love a public pro-con debate. This immediately
polarizes the issue and moves scientists away from the middle
ground. The style is totally different from scientific debates.
You will be confronted with a barrage of allegations, a last
minute amended program, most likely a biased chairman, and you
will become invisible when you want to pose a question. All of
this is designed to unsettle you. Lose your cool and you lose
the debate.
The following could serve as food for thought for the seed
industry:
1.
The GM conflict is the platform for a wider debate. The same
activists persist in attacking the Green Revolution as a
disaster. They are dead-set against any form of intellectual
property rights, modern varieties, hybrids, and commercial
farming, not to forget globalization.
2. Scientists need to understand their responsibilities to society
and the issues on which they are being attacked, while having to
respect freedom of expression of dissidents..
3. Identify individuals who can act as spokespersons and train them
to handle emotional debates and develop credibility with media.
4. Obtain support from scientific associations that can issue press
releases and position statements on behalf of their members.
5. Understand that politicians are basically policy and law makers
and rarely scientists, and that they are very sensitive to
public opinion. Therefore, lobbying politicians and senior
government officials in a factual, balanced manner should be an
ongoing activity.
6. Become acquainted with relevant legislation and international
agreements so as to enable your institution or association to
make meaningful inputs into new laws and assist government on
its position in international negotiations.
7. Liaise internationally with like-minded organizations and learn
from their experience.
Many countries have very able science spokespersons and
active associations. In South Africa,
AfricaBio as biotechnology stakeholders association, several
responsible media and a belated public awareness campaign by
government, have succeeded in moving public opinion from less
than 30% pro-GM to over 58% accepting that GM food is safe. Most
developing countries have little scientific outreach. Scientists
should be aware that the responsibility for communication lies
with all of them. The buck stops also at your desk. |
