Profile

I’m one of those scientists who morphed early into a social scientist – not sure whether that’s “poacher turned gamekeeper”, or the other way around?

I’ve since spent my working life as an activist and academic – getting stuck-in on all kinds of issues around nuclear power, weapons, toxic chemicals, gm foods, nanotechnology, neuroscience and so on…

This has lead to various adventures, anecdotes. laughs and embarrassments… Key threads thro’ all this, tho’, are challenges of uncertainty and democracy. What happens when science and technology meet political and economic power? I’m especially keen on developing practical tools and frameworks for analysing this.

This is not so much about being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ any particular technology, but about how to  choose the best directions for research and innovation?

In a way this question sums up a key thing that’s wrong with much of the discussion of GM. By fixating around “hopes for GM”, we get too easily polarised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. We miss giving due attention to the other means to address the same ends (like human wellbeing, social justice and ecological integrity).

If I were persuaded that a GM technology could really help on these scores better than other means, to improve the lot of the poorest and most vulnerable people, then I would support it. I guess this is a kind of hope…

But, as it stands, my main “hopes for GM”, are that we find a way to invest as much money, skill, attention and political support in arguably more effective  (but sadly neglected) ways to tackle global food challenges (like security, injustice, and environment). I mention some of these below.