The first item is a contribution to a Spiked debate in risk from Alan Irwin, professor of sociology at Brunel University. The second comes from the AgBioWorld list where Irwin's article was also reproduced. Its author is a regular contributor. For more on Spiked (an LM network front): http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=124&page=S

Here's Irwin, "we should appreciate that risks can't be separated from the contexts in which they occur. In the case of GM, that means considering the perceived influence of US companies and the feeling that there are better solutions to world poverty than another technological fix. Honest reflection on the ethical and philosophical issues should not be labelled as procrastination."

1. Irwin on risk, GM etc.
2.Couger on winning public confidence on GM
---

'Rather than representing citizens as risk-averse, we should be engaging more with what people want from technical change.' - Alan Irwin, professor of sociology, Brunel University, Jan. 27, 2004

In a speech to the Royal Society in April 2002, UK prime minister Tony Blair outlined his fear that countries such as India were about to 'leapfrog' the UK in the biotech business. He recalled meeting a group of Bangalore academics, who thought that Europe had 'gone soft on science' and that the European debate about genetically modified (GM) foods was 'utterly astonishing'. Blair's argument was that we stand at a crossroads. Either we choose a path of timidity in the face of the unknown, or else we opt to be a 'nation at ease with radical knowledge, not fearful of the future' .

In the summer of 2003, the government conducted a major public debate about GM and the growing of GM crops. Some of the key messages to emerge were that 'people are generally uneasy about GM', 'the more people engage in GM issues, the harder their attitudes and more intense their concerns' and that 'there is little support for early commercialisation' .

Following the debate, over 100 leading scientists wrote to Blair with what The Times (London) described as a 'once-in-a-generation appeal'. The scientists stressed their demoralisation in the face of public hostility and the government's 'failure to contradict false claims about "Frankenfoods", health risks and "superweeds"'. Criticising the government for allowing this 'backward slide', the letter argued that 'we risk seeing other technologies lose out to prejudice and procrastination'. Scientific bodies are already worrying about the future public reaction to nanotechnology - with the unusual partnership of Prince Charles and the author Michael Crichton portrayed as stirring up anxiety and aversion.

The argument that the general public is both irrational and risk-averse is not new. It has long been fashionable to compare risks according to a statistical yardstick and note the apparent absurdity of people worrying about 'perceived' rather than 'real' threats. The nuclear industry was once keen on this approach: why worry about the remote risk of radioactive release when crossing the road is more dangerous?

But this isn't just about the risks. The question is: why would anyone accept additional risk - no matter how improbable - if the benefits were not clear? This view that risks make no sense without matching benefits emerged during the GM debate. Whatever the risk, if the need for a new technology has not been demonstrated, why go ahead?

I attended one of the regional GM meetings. Of course, others might have been taken over by hysterical hordes, but what I saw was a mature discussion among mature people. What took place in Harrogate was a calm and intelligent reflection, a serious treatment of serious issues. Surely we should be encouraging that kind of engagement rather than presenting it as a backward slide?

In my experience, there is very little anti-science feeling among the general public - but there can be a sort of 'anti-public' feeling among some of those who claim to speak for science 3  . Members of the public will often express caution about the advantages of new science and technology. But it is no use muttering about Luddism when people are simply asking how society will gain from new medical technologies or biobanks. To some degree, I can understand scientists' impatience to get ahead with what they see as significant progress. Nevertheless, other voices have a right to be heard, without being dismissed as hysterical.

So what's the answer? First, let's recognise that science is too important to be left to scientists alone. We should accept that scientists don't have the monopoly on rationality. Those who are critical of public opinion would do well to join the next consensus conference, citizen's jury 4  or regional debate (although they may have to wait since all of these are in short supply). Once their prejudices about the public are put to one side, they might just find that they have something to learn as well as contribute.

Next, we should appreciate that risks can't be separated from the contexts in which they occur. In the case of GM, that means considering the perceived influence of US companies and the feeling that there are better solutions to world poverty than another technological fix. Honest reflection on the ethical and philosophical issues should not be labelled as procrastination.

Finally, we could move to a culture where public opinion is seen as an essential constituent of progress - rather than as an impediment. Doesn't the representation of the public as risk-averse suggest a decidedly arrogant posture in the face of expressed concerns? Rather than representing citizens as risk-averse, we should be engaging more thoroughly with what people actually want from technical change. Of course, this is no easy option - but there is no sustainable alternative.

What about the fear that Europe will be leapfrogged if it indulges in caution and deliberation? First of all, the long-term difficulties of ignoring public opinion are likely to be immense - civil nuclear power is an example of this. Secondly, rather than taking a backward slide into an outmoded world of deference and denial, Europe could present itself as possessing a richer culture of open debate and robust engagement. Only such a culture can fully develop and exploit new technological and social possibilities.

Alan Irwin is professor of sociology at Brunel University, west London. His most recent book (co-authored with Mike Michael) is Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Open University Press, 2003.

---

Winning Public Confidence by Discrediting the Green Lobby
- Gordon Couger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>  

How can we win the public confidence when we can't hold our own. I just got my wife to stop giving money to environmental organizations. She was raised on a farm. She worked side by side with me in the field and took less time than I did deciding to install drip irrigation on 125 acres of dry land in west Texas than I did. My kids buy organic food and will inherit part one of the oldest ranches in the United States. My son sure knows how a farm works. He spent two years of college in Ag Engineering. They had enough sense to stay out of the stock market and considering walking away from the rat race in Silicone Valley at 35 and can afford to do it and still fall for the greens' line of crap. The greens are more of a religious movement than a scientific one an attacking them with reason is not very productive.

The greens have a very good sales pitch and we don't. Not only that we treat them as equals in the press. We are conceding a lot of territory to people we should be treating as kooks.

We don't need to speak up. We need people in the public eye exposing the green lobby for what it is and telling the story over and over until people here and believe it. We need an entirely different group selling our side of the story. I think we have neglected the considerable environmental benefits of Round Up resistant technology and nearly completely ignored the fact that cotton consumes 25% of the insecticide used on this earth and Bt cotton can cut that 50 to 70%. The reductions of mycotoxins in Bt corn grain and the high levels of mycotoxins in organic grain are a natural to turn the tables on the organic claim of healthy food.

The US has fared better because the pubic trust in science is higher because of the USGS, FDA, and USDA -- government science agencies with a long history of good work. But the FDA, EPA and collaboration of public and private research are coming under more and more fire that tarnishes the reputation of all science.

We have the tools to provide sustainable agriculture. We need to sell that hard and not let the green lobby use it against us.

We also need to attack their funding by pressing the foundations that fund them to cut off their money by what ever means it takes. In the case of Earth Liberation Front and PETA the law will probably do the job as they investigate the tax-free money they get. But connecting the failure of green revolution and disease eradication in the third world to the green lobby makes a very strong image. The rise of malaria due to green imperialism is a good start. The story just need to be told over and over and over.

Gordon Couger is a Retired Farmer;  www.couger.com/gcouger