-
Asked by ljrn42 to Andy, Cathie, Jules, Les, Ricarda on 29 Jun 2012.
Question: How can the supporters of GM technology communicate their opinion better to a wider audience rather than just those who take part in I'm a scientist?
- Keywords:
-
Les Firbank answered on 29 Jun 2012:
There are lots of ways, including pubic meetings, talks in schools, Science Week events, articles in the press. But I think the debate about GM has suffered a lot, because those organisations that have a lot of money to spend on publicity tend to be at the extremes of the debate, whether the companies that produce the GM crops themselves or opposing groups. Also the press have always liked arguments between extreme positions, they are more entertaining and newsworthy than more balanced views. So the impression is that GM is a really big deal, whereas it’s just one aspect of the the much broader issues raised at the start of this event, about feeding the work and maintaining our environment.
-
Andy Stirling answered on 29 Jun 2012:
Despite the (sometimes overbearing) size of international NGOs, the relative financial scale of the global industrial and institutional interests behind GM is far larger than that of those interests that oppose it. It certainly dwarfs the resources directly available to the most vulnerable groups in society, who are so often invoked in support of GM. So I’m not sure the greatest challenge in this field is that of how to get the ‘pro GM’ message out! Corporations, lobbyists, advertisers, science communicators, academic educators, intergovernmental organisations and government departments are expending enormous efforts to persuade an often-inconventiently-sceptical public. If society as a whole is to be fair and reasonable about this debate, we should ask how balanced are the public relations resources in favour of GM, compared with those in favour of alternative (arguably more effective) innovations, which do not offer such significant private benefits (and thus command such strong commercial support). I mentioned many of these in answer to the first question. Any injustice suffered by the GM industry is not the biggest story!
-
Ricarda Steinbrecher answered on 3 Jul 2012:
According to my understanding, the issue is not about communicating opinions but to work together to find solutions to problems that affect us all (the sustainability of food production for example). It is not a question of supporters of GM technology to get more publicity for their point of view but for the whole issue to get better or more publicity and discussion, with all the arguments and potential methodologies, including alternatives to GM approaches, such as agro-ecology. Media, scientists and politicians alike have to be prepared to communicate the full complexity of the issues involved rather than making oversimplified claims or ‘silver bullet’ suggestions. This may be hard work but in my opinion it is the only way to do justice to the issues involved and to arrive at sustainable and lasting solutions.
Comments
dingo commented on :
This is something supporters of GM technology do not have to worry about. They have the Science Media Centre
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre
and http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Sense_About_Science
to organise media coverage.
jamesskinner commented on :
Andy is absolutely right that there is little need to worry about whether the GM proponents can get their message across! The multinationals, such as Monsanto, that are promoting GM, have a very strong commercial incentive to lobby Governments and persuade the public that their products should be used as widely as possible. They also have massive financial and human resources to deploy in order to achieve their overriding objective of maximising their profits.
By contrast those who oppose GM have no financial incentive to do so. They are for the most part scientists or students of science who are concerned that facts are being twisted for commercial reasons with possible damage to human health and the environment. Such people have limited financial resources and often spend their own money in what is in effect a David and Goliath exercise.
in the US it has now become well known that there is an active new industry referred to as the Product Defence Industry (PDI). This complex of highly paid law firms and Public Relations companies have made huge sums of money from trying to obscure the scientific facts in order to protect and promote the commercial interests of companies that are involved in marketing dangerous commodities. An early example was the asbestos industry, followed by the lead-in-petrol salesmen. The same PDI companies have been involved with fighting on behalf of the tobacco industry which finally had to pay up $246 billion (yes, billion not million) in compensation for the dammage they have done to human health, contrary to the protests of the tobacco industry and their PDI paid supporters. Now the PDI is being richly rewarded for their work in obfuscating the scientific facts and sowing doubts about the integrity of the overwhelming majority of scientists who are telling us the facts about global warming. They are also employed by many of the same multinationals to encourage Governments to subsidise fossil fuel production rather than renwewable energy. The result is that the International Energy Agency announced recently that worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels were £403 billion last year as compared with £55 billion for all renewables.
Agriculture is the other great income earner for the PDI companies, especially GM. If you would like to have chapter and verse on the PDI companies I recommend reading “Kivalina: A Climate Change Story” by Christine Shearer published by Haymarket Books and obtainable from Amazon. This gives detailed descroiptions and names companies which have been and are involved wkith PDI in many different fields, where the common factor is the need to confuse politicians and the public about scientific evidence so that commericla profit may take precedence over the public interest.