Listen to public, GM experts told

October 22, 1999

Social scientists this week called on scientists to be frank about the limits to their knowledge in order to overcome the public mistrust of genetically modified food.

In a report recommending a radical rethink of the way GM food is controlled, the authors say that public concerns about cultural, ethical, political and scientific issues surrounding new technologies need to be taken much more seriously.

The report pulls together evidence on the GM food debate as part of the Pounds 15 million Global Environment Change Programme, the United Kingdom's largest ever social science research initiative, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The main conclusions are that:

The public is not stupid or ignorant about the risks involved, rather it has "a sophisticated grasp of the main issues"

Science cannot provide definitive answers about the safety of new technologies

A much more independent and participatory style of making decisions is needed if technologies such as GM are to be accepted.

Social scientists from the universities of Lancaster, Wales, Sussex and London collaborated on the report, which was coordinated by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex.

It says government and industry should be more rigorous and open about decision-making strategies for GM food. It recommends the use of citizens' juries, focus groups and consensus conferences so that policy decisions take account of the public's concerns.

"Only then is the crucial ingredient of trust likely to come back into the public's view of managing science," it says.

Author Robin Grove-White, director of the centre for the study of environmental change at Lancaster University, said the regulatory system focused on a narrow range of scientific problems while the public's concerns were much broader. "Many involve very difficult scientific questions such as what will be the cumulative effects of lots of crops, who's in charge and whether we can trust who's in charge," he said.

In the light of deep uncertainties about the effects of new technologies, scientific advisers need to be frank about the limits to their knowledge.

"More scientific research and monitoring of the effects of GM crops and food are needed, but research may never resolve the uncertainties, so decisions on how much uncertainty to accept is essentially political judgement," said Professor Grove-White.

There are also legal implications, according to Chris Williams from London University's Institute of Education. "The justice system must evolve to meet the challenge of scientific uncertainty so that those responsible for new technologies with potential adverse impacts are held responsible for any harm they cause," he said. "They should be taking the risks and bearing the responsibility, not the public."

Public distrust of science was raised by Sir Richard Sykes, chairman of Glaxo Wellcome, the UK drug company, in his SmithKline Beecham lecture, "From Art to Science: Vision and Reality in Healthcare", at the Judge Institute in Cambridge on Monday.

Each successive wave of innovation over the past 250 years had, he said, been greeted with public resistance, from the Luddites to today's pressure groups. A Mori survey for the Office of Science and Technology earlier this year had, however, shown that people do believe benefits will flow from modern technology, "but that can be changed when the media and pressure groups get at it".

Asked by Sir Alec Broers, Cambridge vice-chancellor, to comment on the different public reaction to GM crops in the United States and the United Kingdom, Sir Richard attributed it to the national newspaper industry in the UK and "those results" (Arpad Pushtai's).

Leader, page18

The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust is available from the ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme, Mantell Building, Sussex University BN1 9RF

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October