Apr 16, 2007

Debate

Send Add comment

GMO Safety turns five

“Unease finds a legitimate expression in risk.”

It was five years ago, on 16 April 2002, that the German version of GMO Safety (bioSicherheit) went online. In the words of Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, then State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), at the launch of bioSicherheit, the intention was for everyone to form their own opinion about the opportunities and risks of genetically modified plants. One of the goals was to ensure a better perception within the public debate of the topics and results of safety research into genetically modified plants. GMO Safety spoke to Wolfgang van den Daele about the continuing conflict surrounding crop genetic engineering and the strained relations between science and society.

GMO Safety: Public reservations concerning plant genetic engineering appear to have increased even further over the past five years. The view that genetically modified plants are “not safe” or have scarcely been researched in terms of their potential risks is almost taken for granted. Under these circumstances, what impact can technical information have? Are we talking about gaps in people’s knowledge that are to be filled by means of scientific explanation?

Wolfgang van den Daele: It is indeed astonishing that the risk argument still meets with such a broad response, despite the fact that no particular risks have actually been identified. It is true that there are always the odd hypotheses, which later turn out to be nothing significant. And if there are special safety concerns, the construct in question is withdrawn from the market or not authorised. As a neutral observer, one would say that the risk debate has no foundation.

It seems to me that risk functions as a kind of catch-all category. People have something against this technology. They don’t want it, find it unnecessary or wrong. The impression that the technology is problematic has taken hold to an incredible extent. It is paradoxical: The more one tries to educate the public or engages in public dialogue, the more this impression is reinforced. If we make such a song and dance about it, people think, there must be something fishy.

This kind of unease finds a legitimate expression in risk. People will always fall back on the risk argument. And if they cannot find a specific threat, they say that the potential risks have not been sufficiently well researched. This pattern has been established by the social movements that want to prevent crop genetic engineering – and there is practically nothing that can be done about it. We must of course use scientific explanations. But this is a minimum requirement. If we don’t do it, we are providing another argument. We have to explain, but cannot assume that this will resolve the unease or rejection. Information and transparency are necessary. But this is not the battlefront on which the outcome will be decided.

GMO Safety: Scientific perspectives have only a limited power of explanation in social debate. Public perception – e.g. overstating the risks of transgenic plants – is based more on cultural aspects. What do these perceptions feed on?

Wolfgang van den Daele: My guess is that people have found a symbolic arena in which they can put up a resistance to the dynamic force of technology, which has them at its mercy and which is steamrollering society. In the area of crop genetic engineering people can resist without their own interests being affected. This will remain the case as long as consumers and the general public perceive no personal benefit. They like to see the fight between David and Goliath: social movements, farmers and environmental associations on the one side, and – on the other – big business, which is being shown its limits. A secret sympathy for the obstructive path being pursued by the social movements cannot be ignored.

GMO Safety: Doesn’t society’s risk perception also have something to do with the prevailing understanding of nature or ethics of nature?

Wolfgang van den Daele: I don’t think so. People can accept all kinds of deformation of plants. And the fact that it is genes that are now being modified is not breaking a taboo. Interestingly, there is no objection to “smart breeding” (modern molecular biological breeding techniques), which is used to do the same kinds of thing to plants that genetic engineering is used for. Nor is there any objection to genetic engineering in the field of medicine. If it appears beneficial, people have no problem with the fact that genes are being manipulated.

GMO Safety: An important issue is trust. If you trust someone, you will follow their assessment of a complex issue in an area where you yourself do not have any expertise. In this sense scientists can no longer assume that society trusts them. What can scientists do to win back people’s trust? In a media society can you expect people to trust them at all and allow them special expertise?

Wolfgang van den Daele: I don’t perceive this general loss of trust. People are always running to the doctor and relying on professional expertise. But in areas which are politicised, like crop genetic engineering, the limits of expert knowledge are clearly visible. When it comes to an argument, when the issue at stake is the legitimacy of a development, people withdraw their trust from the expert because he knocks their cherished arguments out of their hands. This is the point at which one says: I don’t trust them. And with that one disposes of the scientists’ power to define and their arguments. Now it is easy to accuse them of acting only on their own interests or on behalf of industry.

If you don’t say “I don’t want it” directly, you say “I don’t trust them”. If a scientist claims that there are no risks, you say “I don’t trust you”. The withdrawal of trust is a powerful weapon – not just in the field of science, but also in the political arena.

GMO Safety: Specifically, what can scientists who work in the area of plant genetic engineering do to gain people’s trust or to give themselves more weight in social debate?

Wolfgang van den Daele: There is nothing they can do.

GMO Safety: Is there no room for action?

Wolfgang van den Daele: They can gamble away trust – and they do that frequently by suppressing data, dressing up results or publicising claims too soon. It is very easy to lose trust, but very difficult to gain it. What do scientists want trust for anyway? People trust them that a technology works and can do something – but that is after all the only thing that they really know. And on other subjects, scientists are competing with people who sow mistrust, which puts them in a poor position. One of the reasons why the experts often have trouble asserting themselves in political disputes is because the experts argue among themselves.

GMO Safety: Even politicians working in this area are often unaware that there is a support programme for biological safety research. The results are not used sufficiently, if at all, in political decisions. How do you view the relationship between research and political decisions in an area as controversial as this one?

Wolfgang van den Daele: In fact, it is only the government agencies that have to decide on safety, not politicians. But the politicians observe the political scenery – and if there is a relevant conflict, they try to avoid it. We have seen this in Europe: Although it is in fact not legally possible, politicians agreed to boycott crop genetic engineering for some time. It would have been a different story if this style of policy had clear economic disadvantages. The tendency to push something through against moods within the population depends on the perceived political and economic value of a technology. Seen in this way, crop genetic engineering is much less important in economic terms than e.g. nanotechnology. The problem is similar but I am curious to see whether politicians will be a bit authoritative here and authorise the technology, backing up their decision with science and safety research.

I agree that safety research into genetically modified plants is not perceived by politicians. You can see this in the fact that when it comes to legislation, the only issues that actually play a role are coexistence and liability. If you want to prevent crop genetic engineering, the safety argument won’t take you any further. You can impose extensive conditions or prescribe monitoring by invoking the precautionary principle, but there are no scientifically based arguments for banning crop genetic engineering on safety grounds. The only area where there is room for manoeuvre in terms of legislation is that of coexistence, and this is being exploited.

GMO Safety: Thank you for talking to us.