Michael Brooks

Here comes the science bit

Lessons from Rothamsted

Nine takeaways from yesterday's protest for the GM scientists and their supporters.

By Michael Brooks Published 28 May 2012 13:03

A "Take Back The Flour" protester in Harpenden, Hertfordshire on Sunday. Photo: Getty Images

Yesterday, police officers helped scientists defend a field of genetically modified wheat from anti-GM protestors. The wheat, planted in a field at the government-run Rothamsted research station, contains a gene that makes the plants emit an aphid alarm signal; the idea is that this will keep aphids away from the crop. Protestors from a group known as Take Back The Flour had announced they were planning to destroy the plants in order to protect the environment from cross-pollination by genetically modified organisms. The scientists countered that the risk of this happening was minimal, and that the research was necessary for progress in food production.

On the day, protestors didn’t manage to cross police lines. The crops are safe and the police are gone, but there are no winners. So what lessons might the scientists and their supporters learn?

1. Don’t ignore natural, evolved human values

Anti-GM protests are about visceral, emotional – and entirely natural – disgust reactions to tinkering with nature. It’s uncanny valley for plants. It’s like asking people to accept zombie waiters at restaurants: however good the staff is, no one is going to be relaxed about it until at least the cheese course. You can’t get people to accept GM as a force for good until you have given them time to get used to the idea that mutant nature is not as unsettling as it might seem. But if we can get used to Tom Hanks in the Polar Express, there is hope we can accept GM crops.

2. Look what other scientists are doing

The nanotechnology people are aware of public concerns and are pressing forward, very slowly, with lots of consultation. So are the people who see medical potential in mixing human and animal genetics. We all need time to talk, you see. The only time you can come in all guns blazing in this kind of research is if you’ve got a killer solution. IVF was a good example: no one – not even the scientists – wanted it. Then Louise Brown was born, and everyone wanted it. Things can turn around: let’s look for the Louise Brown of GM crops. But scaring away a few aphids won’t cut it.

3. Stop griping that your opponents won’t take part in a “rational debate”

Science owns rational debate. Asking protestors to come and have a rational debate is like inviting them to “step down into this dark alley where my friends are waiting to greet you.” Instead, listen to their concerns in silence, then go away and discuss them. Ideally, BEFORE you plant the seeds.

4. Don’t name-call

Luddites. Anti-science. Vandals. Ignorant idiots . . . can you see how this isn’t helping?

5. Don’t cultivate a Geldof complex

Your crops are probably not going to change everything for Africa. Yes, there’s going to be a problem feeding 9 billion people. But the biggest threat is climate change. Maybe GM food will help, but it’s too soon to say. Science-based “solutions” like GM food and geoengineering the planet seem brilliant, but can be a distraction from dealing with the real problem. Let’s face it: equitable distribution of available resources would go a long way towards feeding those who are starving now.

6. Don’t pretend your experiment is the endgame

All the evidence suggests that genetic modification of food, like antibiotic treatment, is like a chess match against a highly creative opponent. The scientific strategies look good for a while, but every move eventually gets countered by evolution. DDT, for instance, only worked for a short time in wiping out mosquito populations.

7. Think about what you’re doing for the public perception of science

If your experiment needs a steel fence and a police cordon, it just doesn’t look good. Sometimes, protection is necessary, as with the anti-vivisectionists, but that’s a whole step up in terms of emotive issues. To the casual observer, a field of wheat being protected by police officers just seems sinister.

8. Don’t expect a YouTube video to change anyone’s mind

Asking people not to destroy the crops because this represents years of work is not a great argument in circumstances where people don’t like your work. Imagine Colonel Gaddafi releasing a video protesting he had spent years building up his tyrannous regime, and you get the idea.

9. Don’t claim you have a public mandate just because some other scientists approved your grant proposal

You have a grant – that is all. The public have no idea what is being approved in their name. And that’s what we all need to talk about. Before this happens again.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: GMO Science

More from Michael Brooks

View the discussion thread.

12 comments

Mon, 2012-06-11 11:48 — Getty (not verified)

Sorry--wut? You want us to join them in irrational debate?

Why is everyone unaware of what happened BEFORE the seeds were planted? Where is that story? I'm getting pretty irritated by all the Monday-morning quaterbacking on this by people who just showed up in the last month.

And where are all the posts asking the opponents to stop lying about terminator seeds and conspiracies of the real drivers of the work? And to stop the "shill" namecalling?

Sigh.
jocuri online gratis

Tue, 2012-05-29 16:18 — JonnyG (not verified)

Your article reminded me of Neville Chamberlain justifying Nazi book-burning.
Here was a quest for knowledge, a field experiment that would have taught us of a great way (if it works) of replacing spraying huge amounts of insecticides. Gor the life of me I cannot understand how these so-called environmentalists can so support the multinational chemical giants that sell these insecticides and would want to hear rationale conversation of ways of by-passing their use of chemicals while keepign yields high without putting more land under the plough.
Lets face it - anyone who tries to hinder the quest for knowledge by force is wearing a brown shirt, and has no place on the loose in a democratic society.

Tue, 2012-05-29 11:17 — No statesman (not verified)

Wow Prof Jones! Having the first 4 comments is certainly one way to have a debate.
I was at the protest yesterday and heard speakers talking of how the reputation of the 'venerable' Rothamsted Research was being damaged. I also heard one of the 'rationalists' that turned up for the counter demonstration (who also happened to be a climate change denier by the way - while we are on cherry picking of what science you are 'pro'), shouting that he hoped 'our children starved'. Nice
Sorry Mary M, not sure what you mean by 'BEFORE the seeds were planted'? Would that be the UK largest ever public consultation that found a total rejection of GM technology by the general public? There was certainly no public consultation before this trial if that is what you are inferring. Perhaps you'd like to stop shouting about what you think protesters are saying and listen to what they are saying. The channel 4 news debate was quite interesting...
http://www.channel4.com/news/protest-over-gm-wheat-study

Fri, 2012-06-01 13:59 — Huw (not verified)

Just to clarify, I am NOT Prof Huw D Jones of Rothampsted. I am a private individual with a name that is pretty comon to the west of Offa's Dyke

Wed, 2012-05-30 01:20 — Surfsailwaves (not verified)

Let me compare the posts.

Huw summarises reasonable arguments in a convenient order, to address the substance in the main article.

No Statesman complains, doesn't address the issues (now in a join-the-dots format), whines about cherry-picking, then cherry-picks!

I know who I want to have an influence on agricultural development.

But many thanks for the Channel 4 link. We certainly need to get away from this TV mini-debate format.

Mon, 2012-05-28 22:18 — huw (not verified)

8 Was YouTube the only thing Rothamsted did? If you think that then, once again, poor research.
9. Yup, people need to involve themselves in democracy. Not a GM issue. But just remember, we live in a democracy where all equal before the law and have an opportunity to change the law (uncrosses fingers and stops pissing with laughter). The Rotho trial was properly set up under the law of the land. In a recent election where the Greens ran a very good candidate in London, who many votes did they get? Not as many as the representatives of two parties that favour GM.
If you were to be honest, you'd recognise the overwhelming majority are ambivalent /uninterested over GM. Its not a major issue for them.
I was deeply riled by the claims of Take the flour back, who claimed to speak for, among others, allotment gardeners. Well, they never asked me and when I checked the National Association of Allotment Gardners, nothing. TAKE the flour back represent a microscopically small section of opinion. They may not admit it but they have little or no support.

Mon, 2012-05-28 22:17 — huw (not verified)

4. Name calling... Franken food, all the bollox about linking GM to swashbuckling corporates. Do me a favour
5. A fine straw man. Nuff said
6. All plant breeding is "a chess match against a highly creative opponent". Just do a little research into the lifespan of any conventionally bred wheat variety. (Usually 5-10 years before a new strain of a fungal disease overcomes resistance. Any plant breeder will assume that GM resistances will break down in the same way in a similar time. GM merely opens up other possibilities mostly to deploy novel resistances more quickly, particularly in crops like potatoes.
7. Oh, puh leeeeze! If the anti GMs didn't threaten to rip it up there'd be no fence, no police, no sinister impression.
If the anti GM folk are really motivated by a desire to reduce corporate control then here's a question: if you stop insisting on more and more regulations and imposing the need for security then GM could become an 'open source' style technology.How about that? Geeks and greens targeting GM to benefit the world's poorest.

Mon, 2012-05-28 22:15 — huw (not verified)

2. Do you want a 'Louise Brown moment'. Look at the flood resistant rice developed at IRRI. It was validated in field trials of GM rice. Those trials would have been ripped up by anti GM zealots, yet this rice will enhance food security of some of the poorest on the planet. All made possible by GM field trials.
3. Just say no to rational; debate. Bang the table. throw your toys out the pram.
There was ample opportunity for the antis to make their comments before the seeds were planted. In fact, GM Freeze made a lengthy submission to ACRE. Then tried their best to make it evidence based, citing papers from the scientific literature to support their opposition. So when you call for engagement 'BEFORE you plant the seeds' you're merely showing that you've failed to research properly. I'd have hoped for better from New Statesman.

Mon, 2012-05-28 22:14 — huw (not verified)

1. Raw viceral emotion is usually associated with bigotry, unreason and disgust, its a charecteristic of racists, xenophobics and others with a closed mind. Its not a basis for decision in any civilised society.
Tinkering with nature? No one does it quite like farmers and plant breeders. The invention of farming 10,000 years ago and subsequent developments is a massive 'tinkering with nature'. If you really claim 'here comes the science' just present the genetics of crop domestication and you'll reveal to your readers how little of what they eat is 'natural'.

Mon, 2012-05-28 19:53 — Rebecca Nesbit (not verified)

Thank you for your interesting analysis of a situation which I think will mark the start of a long debate. I have a few specific issues to raise, however.
2. IVF is an amazing story of winning over scientific and public opinion. A Louise Brown for GM crops, however, would presumably be a crop which helped British farmers. However, we are a long way from that, and a single trial like this has to be a first step. It would be wrong to aim for a 'Louise Brown crop' without engaging in debate early on.
4. Yes, name-calling isn't good, but it's more often come from journalists (and I don't blame them in many ways - what makes a good headline isn't the same as what makes good relationships between scientists and protesters). The scientists have recieved very personal insults, yet they are the ones being told off for name-calling. If we come to the debate as equals we must act like equals.
6. Nobody's even pretending that this crop is anything more than a trial with potential. You only have to look at Rothamsted's other projects to see the diversity of solutions they are researching.
7. Agreed - nobody wants 300 policemen in the area they live and work. But when you receieve threats of criminal action, what's the alternative? If trials get saccrificed in the name of image then the few people willing to vandlise them are the only ones with their voices being heard.
9. Yes, let's talk. We've heard your ideas about how not to - may we have your ideas on how?

Mon, 2012-05-28 22:38 — Mary M (not verified)

Yeah, some ideas would be good, I agree with Rebecca.

Were you really unaware of the bombings of the nanotech researchers when you wrote that #2 point? http://www.nature.com/news/anarchists-attack-science-1.10729 But I'm sure they could use your guidance Michael. Do tell. It's hard to know when some nice folks in the park might take it further.

Mon, 2012-05-28 16:37 — Mary M (not verified)

Sorry--wut? You want us to join them in irrational debate?

And where are all the posts asking the opponents to stop lying about terminator seeds and conspiracies of the real drivers of the work? And to stop the "shill" namecalling?

Sigh.