Lengthy but well worth the read: “FrankenPolitics” by Leigh Phillips
“There is nothing intrinsically malign about any particular technology outside of the context in which it is used. Knives can be used to chop cauliflower or to murder…”
Lengthy but well worth the read: “FrankenPolitics” by Leigh Phillips
“There is nothing intrinsically malign about any particular technology outside of the context in which it is used. Knives can be used to chop cauliflower or to murder…”
Dr. Pamela Ronald and Karl Haro von Mogel jointly posted an entry on Biofortified that dispells the misinformation about the scientific consensus around GE crops. Great points, good read and a nice resource for those of us trying to have conversations around food and agriculture. Check it out here: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/20-points-of-broad-scientific-consensus-on-ge-crops/
…for a bit of navel gazing (AKA ‘excessive introspection’).
My friends often ask me what I do and I am afraid that I may not have perfected my ‘elevator pitch.’ Well, at least not one that really captures what I do in a comprehensive way. So, those of you that are curious about me and what I do and have a bit of time to kill, I invite you to check out this Q&A that Maureen Ogle (@maureenogle) did with me. We cover the bases on my education, my work, my opinions on science communication as well as a few tidbits on public perceptions of science, food and food production.
Also, I had the opportunity to be interviewed by the always charming Ray Bowman on America’s Web Food and Farm Show. This 11+ minute interview represents only a sliver of the time that Ray and I spent together chatting that day (in excess of 2 hours in total). Ray is such a clever, kind person and I was delighted to have the opportunity to speak with him. Please have a listen…
…and tell me, honestly, is my voice as nasally as Fran Drescher’s Nanny Fine’s?
Our segment on “In the Kitch” with Chef Roger Mooking will air on the Food Network this Saturday, 8:30 a.m. (CST). :O)
Evidence based information to inform policy
In November of 2012, I organized a PANEL at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Calgary. We invited experts from Canada, the US and the UK (all with experience navigating the murky waters between science and government) to participate on the panel to discuss the issue:
If non-science factors drive some of the issues, how, if and when is scientific knowledge and expertise accessed to inform evidence-based policy making?
Well, first off, it appears that Canada may be coming up short. This country is a bubbling kettle of political hot water right now. Some argue that the gap between science and government is widening. There are allegations that the federal government is ‘muzzling its science’. A ‘Death of Evidence’ movement even arose out of the AAAS meeting in Vancouver in 2012.
The relationship between science and government in Canada
It is important to emphasize that Canada has used some models to navigate the space between science and government. And these models have worked well to varying degrees. Many were modeled after initiatives in the UK. The problem is that they have long been abandoned. Canada currently has something called the Science Technology Innovation Council (STIC) which reports to the Junior Minister of Science. But, apparently, the advice and information that the organization offers up is ‘secret.’
But ‘secret’ just doesn’t ‘cut it’. The Jenkins Report (Innovation Canada: A Call to Action, 2011) states that while Canada excels in research it lags behind much of the rest of the developed world in commercializing innovation. One of the contributing factors that the Report alludes to is the lack of a broad, transparent connection between science and government.
So, what came out of the CSPC 2012 panel discussion?
1) There are gaps:
2) Good governance required:
Which leads one to ask…
Mobilizing Evidence: what has been done to date?
From the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (1975) to present day, there have been a number of models for knowledge/expertise that have been initiated. The extension model is an old but successful model with a reported good return on investment with these kinds of initiatives working well in agricultural based colleges. They quite often effectively connect researchers and plant breeders to producers. But the problem today is that we are not only dealing with ‘farmer knowledge needs’ here – – – the stakeholder circle has broadened a great deal and this makes things much more complex.
There have been (and are) a number of national and international efforts to summarize, assess and communicate evidence: International Food Safety Network (iFSN), Royal Society of Canada, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC), Nuffield Council on Bioethics, US National Research Council, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) – Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Some initiatives are great at compiling knowledge but not as great at interpreting that knowledge, let alone ensuring that the information gets where it needs to go. Others – like those governed by FAO, WHO and the OECD – although good, can be very slowwwww and ponderous.
There are great examples of formal science-government programs currently in place; ones that are designed to actually push the evidence along to where it needs to be. Programs in the US such as the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowships and the Jefferson Science Fellowships appear to be working quite well. In the UK the government has positions called Chief Scientific Advisors that work to provide evidence to ministers that helps them make reasonable decisions on the basis of real evidence.
All of these are good examples where, at worst, knowledge is gathered and synthesized and where, at best, ‘evidence’ is mobilized into realms where key social and economic decisions are made.
What models can and should we adapt and use in Canada? Can we do more? Can we do better? – – – – Related posts: Digging into the ‘Death of Evidence’
I have been studying PETA – as an organization – for several years. Their business and organization mandates have changed considerably over the past two decades. Where once the organization really did some terrific things, now PETA is primarily focused on building their arsenal of celebrity endorsers and less on caring for the animals. This might explain PETA’s 90%+ euthanization rates. I mean, who has time to find homes for stray animals when one is busy rubbing shoulders with the Hollywood blue bloods? And every celebrity is looking for a ‘political’ (yes, I said political) avenue to push a personal agenda and to remain relevant in the eyes of the fans. It’s not all about altruism. It rarely is.
Dairy producer, Carrie Mess, takes actor Ryan Gosling and PETA to task – who together think that they know something about dehorning in dairy cattle. I don’t know about you, but I’m going with the “real” expert on this – Carrie Mess. Check out her outstanding blog: http://dairycarrie.com/2013/04/05/dear-mr-gosling/
I was invited to join Kevin Chorney on Calgary NOW this past week to discuss GMOs. I just starting giving public talks about the science of genetic engineering and its application in ag and food production. The topic “GMOs” is a controversial one. And, to be honest, depending upon who is involved and their respective agendas, things can get ugly pretty darn quick.
PROGRAM FORMAT: Fortunately, that didn’t happen in this case. Overall, the LIVE TV interview (my first) was a good experience. The folks at Calgary NOW were gracious and hospitable. But I think there were a couple of fundamental problems with the format of this particular program that are worthwhile highlighting:
The first thing is that we covered way too much ground in the time that we had. GMOs is a broad, complex topic that brings up a whole bunch of questions like:
Whew. Lots. And with only thirty minutes, we should have probably picked only one or two things and focused on those.
The second thing was that there seemed to be a mis-match in the expertise of guests. Brent was the other invited guest. He and his wife own and operate a gluten-free food wholesale company in Calgary. They provide local grocery stores and restaurants with gluten-free fresh food fare. Brent is a very knowledgeable chap with years of experience in the wholesale/retail food industry. I kept waiting for our host, Kevin, to link our expertise together in some way. It never really happened until later in the program when I figured out that they were trying to elude to a causal link between genetically modified foods and Celiac disease / gluten-intolerance.
Please note, currently there is no genetically engineered wheat on the market. For those of you that were watching and if it wasn’t made clear, I would like to convey this one factual bit (again): There has been no causal link established between genetically engineered food and harms to human health. None. Mountains of scientific evidence attest to the safety of GE crops and food (eg National Research Council 2004; European Commission 2010).
LESSONS LEARNED: My hubby ‘B’ (and #1 Fan) came with me to the Calgary NOW studio that night. He played ‘arm-chair quarterback.’ I like having him along as he always provides me with good, honest feedback. That night was no different:
B: “To the viewer, your presentation of the facts kind of made you look like a Monsanto supporter.”
Me: “What? Really?” […as Cami mentally back-peddles to review what was said]
In my efforts to participate in the dialogue and to share the facts as I know them, I think that I may have missed the mark in ‘good communication’. I am like many academics. We are often so busy mentally working to convey the facts accurately that sometimes we forget to frame and communicate broader more positive messages about the great things that science does for society. When I come off as a flag-waving fan of anything I am demonstrating bias. That was not the intent behind the information that I shared on the program. My intent is always to present the evidence; the facts. When I do that incorrectly, I am doing a disservice to all the good science that continues to be done in agriculture.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: So, for those of you that actually watched the program, I would just like to clarify a few things:
“…I look at it right now as division of labour. Seed companies are great at coming up with great products, and farmers are great at turning those products into a bounty of food, feed, fuel, and fibre.”
THE TENUOUS LINE BETWEEN FACT AND FAITH: We live in a world where faith is a part of our social fabric. As a researcher, though, I don’t have the luxury to believe anything. I am obligated to examine the evidence and present the facts. Period. In terms of what we consume and the products we buy, it is important that we distinguish between the facts and faith. A good illustrative example of this is in the development of bridges and buildings where structural efficacy depends on evidence based engineering science and not on faith. Our safety depends on it.
As for ag and food production, I will continue to present my knowledge on science and agriculture using an evidence-based approach. I will continue to convey messages like: if we still farmed using the inputs and techniques that we did in the 1950s, we would need 2 billion more hectares available to produce what we produce today. I will remind everyone that we need to raise global agricultural productivity by another 60% in order to meet demands for food in 2050. To meet those demands and other grand challenges (climate change, drought, pests and diseases the world over) in an environmentally friendly way, we need science; good science including genetic engineering techniques.
A RETURN TO CONVERSATION: Back to the Calgary NOW discussion(s). How, in hindsight, could we have changed the format to better suit the expertise that was at the table? Well, in my opinion, it might have been good to just narrow the talk down to the subject of ‘wheat’ – and just wheat. I think that Brent, Kevin and I could have had a great dialogue about Celiac disease and gluten intolerance and about the history, myths and facts around wheat development and production.
There are many of us out there that are trying to communicate the realities of ag and food production and/or science and we are all doing it in different ways. We have to continue to share our respective knowledge by participating in discussions on programs like Calgary NOW, by giving public talks, by sharing our stories and by having conversations. There are gaps in knowledge and many of us just don’t understand the bigger picture of ag and food production.
By the way, I put myself in that latter ‘camp’ too – so much yet to learn.
And I admit it. I might just need a little more media training. ;o)
– – – –
Other good sources as it relates to this post:
Want to know more about GM? Check out Emily Anthes’ article in the New York Post (March 9, 2013) “Don’t be Afraid of Genetic Modification”
Steve Savage gives a fantastic overview of the patent system as it relates to plants in his blog “A Defense of Plant and Crop Related Patents”
– – – –
References:
National Research Council (2004). “Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects.”
European Commission (2010). “A Decade of EU Funded GMO Research: 2001 – 2010.“
You must be logged in to post a comment.