The great agricultural biotechnology debates: Outcomes from the workshops (original) (raw)
Related papers
The GM public debate: context and communication strategies
Nature Reviews Genetics, 2003
of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM products 3,4. This has been in response to public concerns over the potential environmental consequences of introducing some GM cultivars, and the desire for the consumer to be able to choose between GM and non-GM products in the supermarket. It is now anticipated that Europe is in a position to restart the regulatory process. In a recent report 5 , the European Union not only recognizes that "biotechnology has the potential to deliver improved food quality and environmental benefits…", but also states that there is a need for these benefits to be realized in and for Europe.
Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement
A paper by the Sciencewise-ERC subgroup on GM dialogue September 2011 Talking about GM: Approaches to Public and Stakeholder Engagement 2 of 63 Foreword This is a review, conducted on behalf of the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre (Sciencewise-ERC), of the lessons learned from the short history of public dialogue exercises about genetically modified crops and food. These exercises have been one polite and structured aspect of a broader, noisier public debate about Genetic Modification (GM). Taken together, the lessons from these dialogue exercises – each of which began with its own set of motivations and institutional interests – tell us a great deal about the contours of public concern and the best ways of beginning such discussions. This report does not comprehensively map public opinion, which is neither fixed nor homogenous, but it does reveal the directions that public discussions have taken in the past. The themes that have defined public concerns, from which policymakers sh...
Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate
Food Security, 2018
Genetic modification (GM) of crops provides a methodology for the agricultural improvements needed to deliver global food security. However, public opposition to GM-food is great. The debate has tended to risk communication, but here we show through study of a large nationally representative sample of British adults that public acceptance of GM-food has social, cultural and affective contexts. Regression models showed that metaphysical beliefs about the sanctity of food and an emotional dislike of GM-food were primary negative determinants, while belief in the value of science and favourable evaluation of the benefits-torisks of GM-food were secondary positive determinants. Although institutional trust, general knowledge of the GM-food debate and belief in the eco-friendliness of GM-food were all associated with acceptance, their influence was minor. While a belief in the sanctity of food had a direct inverse effect on GM acceptance, belief in the value of science was largely mediated through favourable perception of benefits-to-risks. Furthermore, segmentation analysis demonstrated that anxiety about GM-food had social and cultural antecedents, with white men being least anxious and older vegetarian women being most anxious. Rational argument alone about the risks and benefits of GM-food is unlikely to change public perceptions of GM-technology.
Does Controversial Science Call For Public Participation? The Case Of Gmo Skepticism
Les ateliers de l'éthique
Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.
GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2020
The underlying constructs characterising the never-ending debate and lack of consensus on food are largely issues relating to potential risks and uncertainty GMOs might pose to human health and the environment, and the possible threats to national food sovereignty. This paper is a review study and as such relied solely on published literature on contentious issues surrounding GM crops and its food derivatives. Most of the issues raised in available literature against GMOs on the grounds of health and environmental risks, and national food sovereignty concerns are overhyped, speculative and fear-mongering. Public interest and safety will be better assured and safeguarded if GMOs proponents and opponents reached consensus on standardization regarding tolerable level of harm and acceptable safety limit in interpreting impact assessment results of GMOs on health and environment.
2019
The public has a poor understanding of and inadequate access to accurate information about farming practices, food production and agricultural biotechnology. This means that it is relatively easy to generate citizen rejection and opposition to biotechnology on ethical grounds when amplified by the distortion of evidence. In this paper, two examples are used to illustrate this relating to inaccurate claims that all GMO derived seeds are sterile and that patents on GMOs restrict farmers long-standing traditional rights to save and re-use seeds. The inaccurate and distorted reporting of science and evidence relating to GMOs on the internet has serious consequences for academic research and the public/private knowledge concerning the risk/benefit assessment of GMO culture for human or animal consumption. While scientific data, evidence and facts have now accumulated from decades of research and more than 20 years of commercial cultivation, a challenge remains relating to how to make the general public more aware of this information. This paper presents some suggestions for improving public access to more balanced information and a more 'rational dialogue on GMOs'.
2009
The modern world is becoming increasingly complex not only because of rapid progress in science and technology but also due to the emergence and spread of multiple values. As a consequence, demands for economic and physical security are gradually giving way to demands based on other values such as freedom, self-expression and quality of life. This shift – a turn from ‘materialist’ to ‘postmaterialist’ values (Inglehart, 1997) – has had a tremendous influence across all spheres of our lives. Scientific endeavors related to agriculture are no exception. This turn to postmaterialist values explains the shifting research agenda in agriculture. For instance, when we look at the dominant research agenda in modern biotechnology relating to agriculture and food, the area that I am most familiar with, the emphasis is now shifting from research on, and development of,varieties with improved productivity to those with improved nutrition. This shows the research agenda is moving away from a foc...
A critical discourse analysis of the'GM Nation?'public debate
2012
Abstract: The increasing application of science and technology, while having reduced uncertainties and threats to mankind (like impacts of natural disasters), has also created new uncertainties in terms of risks and ethics. Environmental risks from new technological innovations and ethical questions raised by developments in genetics are the defining uncertainties associated with technology in our risk society. Also the current socio-economic order is a knowledge-driven one.