GM crops: good or bad?

Abstract

There has been intense debate in the columns of EMBO reports and elsewhere about the rationality of the public's attitude towards genetically modified (GM) crops. Some see the public as a victim of misleading information from non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) or newspapers that are seeking to increase their circulation numbers, both of which obstruct correct scientific reasoning (Burke, 2004). Others see politics as an inevitable part of the debate, involving ‘actors’ on all sides, including the scientists themselves (Flothmann & van Aken, 2001). Despite the heated claims that have been brought forward from both sides in the GM debate, the views of the public are seldom taken into account or investigated more closely. Is it true that public opinion is simply formed from the headlines? Do people just swallow the views of NGOs unquestioningly? How does the risk‐assessment process fit into this turbulent political context? And what is the best way forward for beleaguered governments and industry? > The important finding is that public attitudes to NGOs should be seen as active and knowing, rather than passive and credulous A large body of research on public attitudes and perceptions has direct relevance to these questions. Unfortunately, scientists who comment on the GM debate often ignore this. In particular, this research highlights the fact that public responses are more complex and sophisticated than is implied by the simplified description of being ‘misinformed’. It also shows that risk assessments by scientists and regulatory authorities are not only affected by the nature and quality of the available scientific knowledge, but also influenced in subtle and unavoidable ways by disciplinary cultures, social values, institutional priorities and economic considerations. We start with misrepresentations of ‘the public’. The concurrence of public misgivings about GM crops with campaigns by some NGOs and newspapers is sometimes taken to imply a …