Be as open and transparent as possible
Scientist shares lessons from 20 years of GM experiments
THE aquaculture industry could learn much about public perceptions from another controversial area of scientific investigation. So believes Professor Johnathan Napier, of Rothamsted Research, who spoke at the workshop about important lessons gleaned from 20 years’ GM research conducted in the public eye.
The overriding conclusion he has drawn from his experience is that scientists must be as open and transparent as possible’ – by engaging in a
public dialogue, by communicating, not spinning, the story and by being proactive in doing so.
He believes the debate about GM crops is slowly shi ing’ in the scientists’ favour, and although this is not necessarily a result of better public relations, he said they had put in a lot of effort into changing people’s preconceptions.
He told a tale of two GM trials to illustrate the evolution of public attitudes. The first, from 2011-2013, was a wheat experiment and the second, from 2014-2017, was with camelina plants (see Fish Farmer, May 2015).
The benefit of the wheat trial was more for farmers, who would have to crop spray less, than consumers, whereas the camelina project was to produce health giving omega-3.
Napier pointed out that no GM crop has ever been commercially grown in the UK, although other EU countries, such as Spain, produce thousands of tonnes of GM mai e. Brexit, he suggested, may herald a change in Britain.
Against this backdrop, GM experiments cannot be done covertly. Applications for field trials must be advertised in the Times and anyone can write to Defra to object a welcome level of transparency, Napier believes.
However, he admitted that in 2011 they were not proactive in explaining their work and in 2012 a lobby group threatened to destroy the entire GM wheat crop.
We realised we’d need to do more,’ said Napier. The scientists wrote an open letter to the protestors in the pages of a national newspaper and there was a mas- sive police presence on the day of the demonstration, which turned out to be a damp squib’.
But more was spent on the security bill than on the experiment and the Rothamsted team learnt from this. When the wheat project ultimately failed in the field trial we made a big thing about it,’ said Napier, who was fast learning the merits of transparency.
By the time they embarked on the camelina trials they were on the front foot’ and put a lot of information in the public domain.
Positive headlines followed Fish oil from GM plant to be saviour of oceans’ the Times proclaimed in 2015- and although they still have to conduct trials behind security fences, their work from start to finish has been filmed by a BBC crew (for Countryfile).
A spokesman from the Food Standards Agency, also at the workshop, said the GM mailbag had abated big time over the last 15 years’.
We managed to get our message clarified,’ said Napier, having dedicated a lot of time and effort into doing so.
In our experience, a lot of the opposition was focused on globalisation and its impact on the food chain, rather than on GM per se. People want to understand what the benefits are for them so it’s important to lay out cogent reasons.
Think of dialogue more as a tool,’ advised Napier, who also said the Rothamsted team had found the Science Media Centre, based in London, very useful in relaying science stories to the press.