Team:Marburg/Human Practices/Integrated/PAW
Progressive Agrarwende
With our prototyping system, we expect to save future researchers time and resources. However, in order to promote sustainable agriculture, it is of great importance that the topic of genetic engineering is accepted by the general public. To establish acceptance for GMOs, as well as to bring it to the attention of lawmakers, communication is indispensable. To gain insight and a better appreciation of science communication, as well as interpersonal work in research, we held an interview with an expert in the field.
We reached out to David Spencer from the Eco-Progressive Network. The Eco-Progressive Network is a non-profit association that addresses the topics of climate change, species conservation, agricultural policy and has a special focus on the education of genetic engineering. Therefore it is an important part of their work to broaden the communication about genetic engineering of plants not only to scientists but also to farmers, as well as the general public. On their website they state that “We need progress to reach sustainable development goals. A production meeting the needs of over 7 billion people without destroying their basis of existence has not been established in the past.” David Spencer is a PhD student at the institute for plant physiology of the RWTH Aachen University. He is doing research on disease resistance in crop plants and uses the advantages of genetic engineering to adjust those to the effects of climate change. David Spencer is also working as a science communicator and is often seen on stage performing science slams. In his performances, he educates about controversial science topics and brings them closer to the general public.
Since EcoProg’s initiative Progressive Agrarwende (PAW) is trying to bring more clarity and progress to this very process, we felt it was important to interview David Spencer about the future of agribusiness. At the beginning of our interview, he clearly shared his point of view on the future of agriculture: "[It is important] to develop agriculture further, always with the latest science and technology, [...] to think further in an evidence-based way and to make decisions based on scientific facts, to stimulate socio-economic decisions and political choices.” When we asked him about his assessment of the importance of clearly communicating scientific issues, he answered: “ Scientists have failed to learn how to communicate. [...] Social acceptance begins with the understanding of the subject matter. [...] Science communication is essential and should be integral in scientific degrees, so that modern innovations can ever reach society.” With genetic engineering being an umbrella term for different engineering methods and approaches, there are different risks and possibilities attached to these.
A transgenic approach uses genetic information from another species introduced into the plant genome, while mutagenesis is leading to different versions of the already existing genes. When asking about the risks and the potential of transgenesis in general, he was quick to reply that transgenesis provides a wider range of possibilities for optimizing organisms in a targeted direction than mutagenesis. He also stated, that even though there is a risk of unwillingly creating allergens de- novo, any allergy causing proteins may be present in pollen or in the end product. These can be tested with already existing pipelines of food testing and quality assurance mechanisms, where companies do extensive clinical studies and preclinical studies to avoid these risks.
"Scientists have failed to learn how to communicate [...]." - David Spencer
Because of his work in science communication, it was very important for us to ask him about his experience with the rejection of green genetic engineering within the population. In Mr. Spencer’s opinion, one of the biggest problems still is “that scientists have never really learned to communicate”, which is why it is very important to him to formulate his articles and his appearances in a way that is understandable to a wider section of the public.
“I guess that genetic engineering has a bad image for various reasons, the first reason being that for decades it was reserved for a few large companies to do research on it, which did not have much transparency, which then simply made it into the media in the form of products but of course also occasionally in the form of scandals. This is the only image that has remained of green genetic engineering. But precisely those populations that reject green genetic engineering could be helped by taking a look at social justice alone".
One could even argue that those populations who oppose green genetic engineering may be the ones who benefit the most from it, Spencer noted. One could even argue that those populations who oppose green genetic engineering may be the ones who benefit the most from it, Spencer noted. Matin Qaim and Klümper have published a study in 2014 where it is described that on average the yield per field can be increased by about 20% through genetic engineering and the use of pesticides can be reduced by about 37%. As a result of these two things, the profit for the farmer can be increased by 68%, which is a significant improvement.[1] From David Spencers perspective that would consequently help social justice, provided that the policy enables it.
Inspired by his vision, we asked what necessary steps iGEM Marburg could contribute with, to translate this information into policy changes for green genetic engineering. But what can we do in order to translate this information into policy changes when it comes to biotechnology?
David Spencer gave us some thoughts on the matter: To make an impact on that level our team should reach out to as many public spaces as possible and introduce the topic into their lives.
To read more about our interview with David Spencer, you can find the transcript of our interview here.
Insights
This insightful interview has made us realize how important the role of scientists in science communication is, especially in the manner in which we deliver the message: It needs to be passed on in a clear and accessible way, so as not to alienate laypeople. Our impression is that the gateway to this is addressing students, as they are still open minded and able to learn quickly. Equipped with the lessons from the interview, we designed an education programme that would bring synthetic biology to schools, with the aid of the BioBits Educational Kits, our team implemented a pilot project in a local school, having in mind the possibility of expanding its reach in the years to come.
Sources
- Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE 9(11): e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629