Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles) AusBiotech ISSN: 1036-7128 Vol. 10, Num. 4, 2000, pp. 23-24

Australasian Biotechnology, Vol. 10 No. 4, 2000, pp. 23-24

GMOS

SCIENCE VERSUS GMOS (GOOD MEDIA OPPORTUNITIES)

Paula Fitzgerald

Agrifood Awareness Australia

Code Number: au00043

Several years ago, Craig Ventor of the Human Genome project said, “Scientists who do not bring an understanding of what they are doing to the public at large, won’t be doing it for much longer”. His words certainly carried a message, but unfortunately, the issue is not quite as simple today.

A recent incident in Mt Gambier in South Australia involving genetically modified (GM) canola trials attracted both national and international media coverage, resulted in several state rural forums, and created much discussion throughout regional, rural and metropolitan Australia. Of all the issues that were raised, one point certainly came through loud and clear - the need for credible, fact-based information on gene technology is absolutely essential.

CHANGED GOALPOSTS

Craig Ventor’s call for scientists to present their research to the public raises no disagreement; however, the goal posts have moved - it is no longer sufficient for scientists to simply ‘translate’ their scientific findings into catchy media snippets and headings. In the current GM debate, much more is required - in fact, catchy media headings, without strong media talent and solid but simple scientific explanation, are probably something to be warned against. As an example, just two years ago, it would have been acceptable to issue a media release entitled “World’s First Super Clover”. Today, however, that media release would read “GM clover reduces chemical applications” - clearly stating up-front that the product is genetically modified, and highlighting the benefits delivered.

Gene technology is very cleverly being linked to large crop yield loss, environmental risks, increased herbicide usage, antibiotic resistance, allergic reactions, and on really bad days, mad cow disease and cancer. These links are based on little fact and minimal logic. For example, where is the logic in herbicide tolerant plants being developed to allow farmers to drench their crops in chemicals - why would a farmer change production to grow a new crop which reduces his/her profits?

Much of the current debate is based on emotion, misinformation and misunderstanding - and the opportunity for a great headline. Statements such as ‘shooting fish genes into strawberries’ allow imaginations to run wild; creating wonderful images such as strawberries with fins rolling up onto our beaches. Yes, it may sound ridiculous, but for some, it is imaginable. The much reported “crossing species barriers” is seen as akin to playing God.

The difficulty in the debate is that the experts, the scientists, tend to phrase their scientific results carefully - being cautious to ensure that data are as they appear for a particular experiment, and that no false promises are made, or facts stretched. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate have little hesitation in misrepresenting facts and drawing long bows to link unrelated incidents to make a point, focusing on the emotional issues.

THE CHALLENGE - THE 6CS

The road ahead for those working in biotechnology is not necessarily going to be smooth, but if the industry as a whole made a concerted effort to support the following ‘6Cs’, the path may prove less bumpy.

Commitment

Those pushing the anti-gene technology line have dedicated the coming months or years to the cause. On the other hand, those involved in biotechnology seem to go about their day-to-day business and only jump into the debate, when it is deemed absolutely necessary. This is no longer good enough. The biotechnology industry needs to be vocal and be proactive rather than reactive. If every individual involved in gene technology research created just one opportunity to further the GM debate, in a balanced and credible manner, we would be a long way ahead.

Consistency

The messages must be clear and consistent and they must be well thought through. For example, gene technology is not going to feed the world, but gene technology is another tool that will assist in increasing the production of quality food on the same amount or less land than is currently being used.

Credibility

The issue of credibility is critical. It is now commonplace for people to obtain their information about gene technology from the Internet - material that is not always referenced and is rarely peer reviewed, but is deemed credible simply because it has been published. The biotechnology industry and researchers must make a concerted effort to place credible, science-based, easily understood, illustrated material on the World Wide Web - material registered on search engines.

The biotechnology industry and researchers must also ensure that it uses good credible material in all presentations - keeping in mind that we are in Australia, talking to Australian consumers, farmers and communities - so let’s use Australian examples and data - material relevant to our audience.

Clarification

When we hear or read false information, let us make an effort to clarify it. Use your network, write a letter to the editor of the publication, seek a right of reply with the electronic media.

Clever

Be media smart. Know the journalist, know the types of stories he/she has written, know the angle, and know the other interviewees. When you have achieved this, go further - build relationships with journalists, invite them into your laboratory or office, help educate them. Journalists are not necessarily experts - with fewer resources these days, science is often the topic delegated to the least-busy journalist of the day. Have written background material prepared and make the explanation thorough but simple. Finally, enrol yourself in media training - you’ll never regret it!

Communication

Let’s get out there! Create opportunities for balanced debate. Host a forum, invite the media to visit, speak to grower groups, and produce a brochure to handout to visitors, detailing your research activities.

Finally, once you’ve translated the scientific jargon, remember to tailor your communication for your audience. For example, in Australia’s cotton industry, GM cotton, with in-built protection against heliothis, has reduced pesticide applications by 50%. This statement is very meaningful to a cotton grower and the surrounding community, but is virtually meaningless for city dwellers in our metropolitan centres. The message needs to be changed quantify the 50% - how many litres, equivalent to what? What is the dollar saving, what does it relate to?

Conclusion

Let’s make a commitment to enhance the GM debate with credible, fact-based information, therefore empowering consumers to make informed decisions about the role of gene technology in their lives.

Paula Fitzgerald is the Executive Manager of Agrifood Awareness Australia, an industry initiative launched in May 1999 to help increase public awareness of gene technology through the provision of quality factual information on the application of biotechnology in agriculture. Members of the Organisation include the Australian Biotechnology Association, Avcare, the Grains Research and Development Corporation, the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association, the National Farmers’ Federation and the Seed Industry Association of Australia. For further information see http://www.afaa.com.au

Copyright 2000 - Australiasian Biotechnology