May 4, 2000 / The Vancouver Sun
Iain Taylor, a professor in the botany department and Botanical Garden at
the University of British Columbia, and is an associate in the Centre for
Applied Ethics, writes that recent developments in biotechnology have both
excited and confused the general public. Research to transfer a correcting
gene into a child with a birth defect is often greeted as a great advance
with obvious benefits, while use of the same gene-transfer technology to
produce a pest-resistant crop plant may be challenged because we are "messing with nature."
Taylor says the confusion comes from several directions. The technology for
genetic engineering is elegant, even simple, to laboratory researchers but
extremely complex to explain to non-scientists. As well, the inherent
conflicts of interest that exist in and between universities, industry and
government stemming from the financial stakes in biotechnology lead to a
strong temptation among scientists to ignore challenging questions -- to
keep their heads down and proceed with their work.
It doesn't help that scientists often disagree over such complex issues as
biotechnology. Some choose to emphasize the benefits of plant biotechnology
to make faster progress in crop plant improvement, while others see great
risks to the environment.
Failing to communicate the issues, including the conflicts, represents, says
Taylor, a failure of science to meet its obligation to society. Scientists
must provide straightforward and accurate accounts of new advances,
especially when they affect almost every area of our health, food and
environment. By remaining silent, scientists feed the growing public
mistrust.
Part of our problem is a weak communication link with the mainstream media.
Taylor says that few scientists have constructive working relationships with
reporters whom we rely on to inform the public about science and to comment
on the news. We hear calls for more science journalists, but that avoids the
obligation for scientists to do some of their own communicating directly
with the public.
Two promising models for the sharing of scientific information are consensus
conferences and science shops. Canadian scientists would do well to consider
applying such solutions to our growing communications crisis.
consensus conference
The "consensus conference" was developed in the
United Kingdom in the 1970s. A conference on plant biotechnology was held in
Calgary in 1999.
Another approach is the "science shop" -- developed in Netherlands and now
being operated from university campuses in more than a dozen countries
worldwide. The main purpose is to make scientific knowledge accessible to
organizations with a need for community-based research.
Science shops conduct research and provide advice in areas such as nature,
environment and health as well as in the social sciences. Preference is
often given to research for organizations, and occasionally individuals,
that serve a broad public interest and where results will not be used
commercially.
Such public-service work may be a valuable way of informing the public about
scientific and technological progress before it becomes a multi-national
commercial juggernaut.
If there are benefits to plant biotechnology, we must find them and explain
them, but we must be much more thoughtful in considering risks.
The public must be the watchdog and demand that the biotechnologists,
especially those in government who may be acting as both promoter and
regulator, take risk seriously and cautiously.
(posted without permission)
