"The introduction of GM papaya has brought economic and environmental disasters to farmers in Hawaii in the past five years'' (item 2)

...more fundamental questions need to be asked. What is the technology for? Who controls it? Who will take responsibility if things go wrong? (item 1)

1.Scientists must listen to the public
2.Hawaiians warn Thais against GM papaya
---

1.Scientists must listen to the public
EDITORIAL
The Nation (Thailand), 13 September 2004
http://www.biothai.org/cgi-bin/content/news/show.pl?0327

Scientific policies can backfire if professionals fail to look beyond the lab

The way Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra retreated from his policy on genetically modified (GM) crops was a negative lesson in political credibility, but political lessons were not the only illuminating topics to emerge from this debate. The scientific community could also learn a lesson or two from this failed policy initiative, particularly if science is to sit in the driver's seat in future development initiatives. Changes are taking place the world over in the way that any single discipline advances the interests of humanity. For example, activists were initially the only people involved in battling against dogmatic policymaking where it affected the environment. Eventually, debates over the environmental ramifications of public policy were expanded to include all stakeholders, like community members and consumer groups.

Scientists usually think in terms of "facts", but in the real world perceptions of "truth" are equally important. Scientific discoveries affect different people differently and far beyond the confines of the laboratory.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. Nanotechnology like genetic modification could yield opportunities for advancement, particularly for less developed economies, for whom the chance to leap-frog can be seductive. However, there are concerns that genetic modification can engender unexpected consequences. Who's to say whether the resistance of European consumers to GM products is more or less reasonable than the whole-hearted welcoming of the technology by the United States?

A group of scientists at Cambridge University in England recently welcomed the first lab-based sociologist to the team. His role is to help the other scientists reflect on the social and ethical implications of their research. James Wilsdon, the co-author of the "See-through Science" column in the Financial Times, has written that a quiet revolution is under way in the United Kingdom as scientific dialogue with the public moves "upstream" to an earlier stage in the research and development process. A report from the Royal Society, an independent scientific academy, echoed the growing call for public debate at the research level, before scientific issues have a chance to become deeply entrenched and polarised. Wilsdon has asserted that not only do the assumptions and risks surrounding nanotechnology need to be opened up for discussion, but also more fundamental questions need to be asked. What is the technology for? Who controls it? Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?

This revolution requires that research companies take into account the views of consumers by using market research, and that scientists foster links with social scientists and public interest groups. Without inter-disciplinary participation, the billions spent on research could be wasted in the face a simple "no" from the public. Both Thailand's scientific community and its top-down policymaking culture stand to benefit from the UK experience.

If you want to leap-frog by using scientific innovation, then public participation and dialogue must part of the process. It is equally important to invest in human resources and capabilities in order to produce more future scientists. Last but not least, an opening of the sciences could save the prime minister from the political embarrassment of seeing a good intention transformed into a failed policy direction. And anti-GMO activists and Greenpeace will finally have the chance to say, "I told you so."
---

2.Hawaiians warn against GM papaya
Bangkok Post, 04 July 2003
Species' introduction may hit native strain
Kultida Samabuddhi

Hawaiian farmers yesterday warned Thai farmers against planting genetically modified papaya, saying that the plant would invade local varieties, with serious market loss.

"The introduction of GM papaya has brought economic and environmental disasters to farmers in Hawaii in the past five years,'' Melanie Bondera told a press conference organised by Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

"I understand that GM papaya is going to be introduced in Thailand soon. So, we would like to caution you about its possible adverse impacts.''

GM papaya grown in Hawaii had a weaker tree, softer fruit and was less popular with consumers than other varieties. The strain also required greater use of fertiliser and pesticides, which increased costs.

"GM papaya sells for only 13-17 cents a pound compared to the 45-85 cents a pound for non-GM varieties,'' she said. The rejection of GM papaya by the Japanese market had been a devastating blow for Hawaiian farmers.

"About 60% of Hawaiian papaya were imported by Japan, but since the GM papaya's introduction by scientists of the University of Hawaii, Japan has rejected papaya shipments from Hawaii because its consumers are against GM food,'' she said.

GM papaya is a transgenic papaya strain resistant to ringspot virus, a disease which can cause a drastic loss of yield.

Field trials of GM papaya in Thailand have been conducted by Mahidol University's Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Kasetsart University's department of plant pathology, Kamphaengsaen campus, and the Department of Agriculture's research station in Khon Kaen province.

Ms Bondera said GM papaya could easily cross-breed with local species. "A number of Hawaiian farmers who refused to grow GM papaya found that their papaya plantations were contaminated with GM papaya.''

Jon Biloon, from Big Island, Hawaii, said Thai farmers should neither allow scientists nor state officials, who were backed by trans-national companies, to dictate the nation's agricultural practice through genetic engineering technology.

"There are several means to fight the papaya ringspot virus and other plant diseases. Instead of adopting GM papaya, Thai farmers should develop alternative pest control and virus resistant measures, which are more environment-friendly than GE technology,'' said Mr Biloon.

Organic farming and the multi-crops system were a long-term solution for ringspot virus. He suggested Thai farmers grow as many plant species as possible on their farms. These plants would become alternative food for insects, the ringspot virus carriers.

A herbal extract, such as neems, could also effectively protect the plant from virus carriers, Mr Biloon said.