New posts tomorrow

Sorry for not posting new material over the past week or so, I've been away on holiday.

I'll get on top of things today and should have new posts up from tomorrow morning.

This is why we need better communication

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/15803/genetically-modified-foods-need-government-regulation

The above article is chock full of ridiculous statements that have absolutely no basis in science, or are just plain wrong.

Yet I have no doubt that the average non-scientists would find it very hard to pick out the truth from the non-truths in articles such as this.


This is why we need to push for better communication of the science of GM...


The sentence that really caught my eye was this one: 'Another risk with GM foods involves ingesting antibiotics to the point that humans and animals could become immune to antibiotics.'


Plants don't get given antibiotics. 


People get given antibiotics. 


Antibiotics are designed to kill off disease-causing bacteria in people and animals. 


It is physically impossible for a human to become immune to antibiotics - the bacteria within you potentially could with prolonged use, but the only thing the human body would become immune to would be any side effects from taking the drugs in the first place.


Now here's a task for you at home - read the article in question and see how many other wrong things you can find, simply from what you have learnt from my blog.

Is it worth teaching the science of controversies?

Reading through a paper for an education subject, I came across this very interesting paragraph:

"In addition, the science needed for an understanding may be so recent as to post-date the school years of most adults: for example, this was the case with the recent SSE (mad cow disease) controversy. If we teach young people the science they need to understand a current-day issue, it is very likely that the scientific knowledge involved will last them for a very few years after leaving school: either the science will be dated or the controversy will be overtaken."

So in other words they are saying that there is no point teaching the science of current controversies (such as Mad Cow, or Swine Flu, GM, climate change etc) because in a few years the science will be outdated, or it won’t be a controversy any more.

Let’s look at the Mad Cow controversy – people were getting sick and even dying from eating beef. The science told us that bacteria cause Mad Cow disease, and that you should cook beef at around 70 degrees Celsius, because at that temperature the bacteria that causes the disease would die. Even though the controversy came to an end, anyone who learned that little bit of science could continue to use that scientific knowledge throughout the rest of their lives, and pass it on to others.

So I wonder how true that paragraph is? Surely big, long standing controversies such as climate change and GM won’t be solved quickly or neatly. I think they will be around for a long time, purely due to their nature.

No matter if they linger or come to a quick close, I think teaching people some of the science of these controversies would be beneficial, and last them for a long time. Even if the scientific knowledge becomes outdated, if a person understood that outdated knowledge, they should be better able to understand the newer knowledge.

But then we circle back to my last post – how much of what should we teach people?

The paper that the quote came from was:

Smith DV, Gunstone RF. Science curriculum in the market liberal society of the twenty-first century: ‘Re-visioning’ the idea of science for all. Research in Science Education. 2009;39:1.   Link

How much of what type of information?

In the previous post I asked these questions:

What type of information should non-scientists know?

How much do they need to know?

Why should they need to know it in the first place?

I believe the public should know enough about the actual science of GM in order to make reasonable, well informed decisions. To do this, they should understand what GM is, how it works, and how it may affect them going about their daily lives.

In class we discussed how there are three types of information when it comes to science: the raw data, the information that comes from interpreting that data (This one is a bit tricky, because different people, even different scientists, may interpret data in different ways. For the sake of this post, let’s assume that all information is interpreted correctly by everyone.), and then there is the knowledge that comes from combining various sets of information.

With GM, I think the public has no need to know of the raw data, as they most likely wouldn’t know what to do with it. 

When raw data is presented, it will be interpreted by the person reading it from their past experiences – if they know nothing of the science, how can they interpret the data? This can lead to misunderstanding, which in turn can sometimes lead to hysteria. 

For example, pretend a test showed that 1 out of 1000 mice died during an experiment where the mice were fed GM food. To the scientists, this may be completely insignificant, but a person who doesn’t understand the science or the test may interpret that as ‘1 in 1000 people will die from eating GM food’. This could then be expanded to say that, ‘if 1 in 1000 people died, and every person ate GM food, then because there are 6,868,900,000 people in the world, 6,868,900 people will die.’ As you can see, things can easily get out of hand.

The next level is the information that comes from interpreting the data. A lot of what you see in the media is this sort of information. A journalist has seen a scientific paper, or media release, that mentions some piece of information, so the journalist writes an article based on this. Again, this can be misinterpreted if the person doesn’t understand the science.

The final level is the knowledge that comes from combining sets of information. I believe this is the best place to start when trying to educate the public. For example, when trying to teach someone about DNA, you wouldn’t start by giving them raw data, or the interpretation of that raw data, you would give them the knowledge that has come from all of that. Once they understand that knowledge well enough, they may be able to understand the information; and once they can comfortably understand that information, they may be able to look at the raw data and make some sense of it.

So in answer to the questions at the start of the post, I believe the public needs to understand DNA and the basic process of genetic engineering. From there, they can better understand the risks and benefits (when presented fairly).

What communication problems are involved?

This question has a two-pronged answer.

Firstly, the scientists are not doing much to ensure their research is presented to the public and critics in a timely manner. When the science is presented, often the critics will pick out individual word choices as evidence that the science is ‘bad’. For example, the scientists might pick up on something that is very small and of no real significance, yet the critics may take this and blow it out of proportion.

Secondly, adequate general information about GM is not being presented to the public. Much of the general public still has no idea exactly what GM is or how it works. Those that have some idea generally do not understand it in any great detail, and so misinterpret information. The media are especially prone to this type of behaviour – I wonder how many journalists who write articles about new developments in GM actually understand what it is?

But then comes the questions of how much of what type of information should non-scientists know? How much do they need to know? Why should they need to know it in the first place? These I will discuss in the next post.

What features of scientific practice contribute to the controversy?

This is an interesting question. 

You could say that the entire science of GM is contributing to the controversy surrounding it.

Critics of this technology will pick out any bit of the science behind GM and say why it’s bad/wrong.

For example; the process of inserting the gene isn’t specific enough, the process of isolating the gene isn’t specific enough, safety testing procedures aren’t good enough, etc.

These critics will pull apart anything they can (rightly or wrongly), and if scientists defend it, the critics will either push for more ‘proof’ or move on to something else. (Proof is an interesting thing, as we discussed in class. I’ll touch on it in another post.)

I think the biggest feature of scientific practice that’s contributing to the controversy is the lack of adequate communication. I’ll talk about this in the next post.

Is FSANZ failing at communicating GM to the public?

While searching through the FSANZ website, I found this booklet. It looks like it has been produced to inform the public about GM technology with regard to food.

Looking through it, it seems to explain everything pretty well, from how it all works to potential risks to what they are doing about those potential risks.

This is the first I've seen of this booklet, and I only found it by searching through their website - it is only present on one page, in a little box saying 'related links'. I wonder, if it was intended for the public, then why have I only come across it now, and why was it in such a hard place to find? (considering I've spent all semester looking up GM info) Shouldn't something like this be posted everywhere it possibly can, to ensure as much of the public sees it as possible?

I think this is a case of bad communication - the fact that such a helpful and easy to read document isn't readily available to those who might want to find it. I didn't even know FSANZ existed until I came across them by accident. I think they should be doing more to communicate GM to the public, so the the public gets scientific information about this topic directly from the people who make the decisions on it, rather than getting a watered down, altered view from the media. They are essentially the front line for GM into Australia and New Zealand markets.

Here is a link to the booklet:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/GM%20Foods_text_pp_final.pdf

Please read it, it might explain things better for you than I have.

Trusting the 'experts'

Thinking back to the last post, I started to wonder about the 'experts' that put themselves forward in this controversy. In this post I'm looking at two expert groups - scientists, and the people at Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).

Of course our first instinct is to trust FSANZ, as they effectively control what food stuff is allowed to be released in Australia and New Zealand (that is their purpose). If they say it's safe, then it must be, right? I mean, they have teams of scientists who conduct all sorts of tests to determine the safety of any GM food or food product. They even ask for public feedback before anything is released into the market (assuming they pass the safety assessment).

I came across this interesting bit of info when looking through their site. The link to the page is: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2010/updateaustriangovern4778.cfm

Basically, FSANZ commissioned Australian scientists to study the effect of a particular GM corn on the fertility and longevity of mice. The scientists reported at the end of the experiment that there were slight differences between the fertility of GM and non-GM fed mice. In other words, they were saying that being on a diet of GM changed the mice's fertility in some way (this isn't specified on the website).

However, when FSANZ took a close look at the report, they found 'numerous deficiencies in the experimental methods used, and in the interpretation of results.' They also found that there were calculation errors. 'As well as the calculation errors, it appears that the apparent statistical difference in the third and fourth litters is based on an unusually large litter size in the control group. Furthermore, it is worth noting that pup losses in the GM group were actually lower than in the control group in the first, third and fourth litters, however this was not reported by the authors.'


All of these errors resulted in the conclusion that there was a difference in GM-fed mice. This conclusion was incorrect. There really was no statistical difference between the two mice groups. 


FSANZ has had to dismiss the findings of the paper all together, and apparently there are no plans to re-do the experiment.


The GM corn in question had previously been shown by numerous agencies around the world to pose no risk when consumed.


When you see something like this, it makes you wonder if there was some ulterior motive behind the scientists, because these are pretty big mistakes to make. Either that, or they were pretty sloppy with their work, and very selective with what results they put forward.


Seeing this also makes me happy FSANZ exists, and that the people there are smart enough to pick up on something like this. If those original results had been released into the hands of the media or advocacy groups, you can just imagine the outrage it would cause.

In this case, it is very good that there are experts to look over the other experts shoulders and make sure what they are doing is correct.

FSANZ and the safety of ingesting recombinant DNA

Many of you will have heard/read about safety concerns regarding GM food. One of the biggest controversies in this sense is whether or not the presence of recombinant DNA (the new DNA formed when foreign DNA is inserted) is harmful to humans.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) says that there is absolutely no reason to fear recombinant DNA within food, as it is chemically no different to non-recombinant DNA (for the record, DNA has always been present in food, no matter if it is meat or vegetables, GM or non-GM). The fact that it is recombinant DNA is essentially meaningless.

Chances are the bit of DNA which has been inserted into the organism is from another organism that we eat anyway. Even DNA from bacteria or viruses that has been inserted into an organism to make a GM food pose no real risk in this sense – these bacteria and viruses are often naturally found on or in food we eat.

FSANZ says that the risk posed by recombinant DNA is equivalent to the risk posed by non-recombinant DNA.

As part of their strict food safety assessment process, FSANZ fully characterises the DNA that is going to be inserted into the organisms, as well as the recombinant DNA it produces. They can use this process to determine if there are any potential health risks from ingesting the recombinant DNA.

This means they can put a halt to any potentially harmful GM products very early on.

I will talk more about issues around the products of recombinant DNA in another post.

Here is the FSAZN fact sheet on the safety of ingesting recombinant DNA:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2008/gmfoodssafetyofinges4072.cfm

Glut versus Gap

In class we talked about the concept of an ‘information vacuum’. An information vacuum is described in the book ‘Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk’ by Leiss and Powell (a book about science communication) as what happens when the scientists conducting research about something make no special effort to communicate their finding to the public, and what does come out is partial scientific information that is often conflicting and mixed with public fear. (All this can be found on page 31).

Two things can happen in this instance where scientists are not informing the public in a timely, accurate manner – a glut or a gap.

A glut is when there is a shared view of the risks involved, however there is no unique agreed upon fact.

A gap occurs when there is a unique agreed upon fact, but no shared view of risks between groups.

I think GM has elements of both.

Glut – both the public and scientists agree there could be risks involved, such as environmental issues like increased invasiveness (shared view of risks involved), but they cannot agree upon how great these risks are (no unique agreed upon fact). Some advocacy groups say the risk is immense, most scientists say it is not.

Gap – there is a gap in the sense that there are undeniable benefits to GMO such as increased nutrition (this is the unique agreed upon fact), however opposing advocacy groups (including scientists in some cases) do not share a view on the risks involved (see my previous post about risks for more on this).

For the ‘information vacuum’ to be solved here, I think the scientific community needs to keep the public better updated on advancements in technology and knowledge. How they can do this effectively is a topic for a future post. 

Benefits of controversy

Although you might think that controversy is a bad thing – it isn’t always.

As seen in the last post, many factors come into play with GM, and they act upon each other in a variety of ways – internal factors can cause external factors, external factors can cause internal factors, each can inflate the other, etc.

I believe in a topic such as GM, where human and environmental health is potentially at risk, controversy is actually a good thing.

The public is demanding to know that it’s safe, that it’s worth the risks. In doing so, they are forcing the scientists to look more closely at the work they are doing, and making sure governments have regulations in place for the creation, testing, and release of GMO.

One thing that confuses me, however, is that some advocacy groups are demanding more testing for crops, yet at the same time protesting when scientists do field trials (which are the only real way to test crops)...

Internal and external factors

I think most scientific controversies have both internal and external factors contributing to the disagreements. Internal factors are those which are within the scientific community itself, whereas external factors are ones outside of the scientific community – mostly public created/driven.

GM certainly has aspects of both internal and external, but I believe the major controversy is mostly external.

There is some debate within the scientific community as to things like terminology (what exactly defines a weed, etc) and probably on what the best techniques to use for various processes are.

External factors are rife, however, ranging from advocacy groups; religious groups; disagreements over risks (see previous post); public misunderstanding, not understanding, or not willing to try to understand... this list can go on for as long as you can think about such topics.

There is also the factor of lack of research into various aspects of GM; however I think this is not really an internal or external factor, as it is not a question of scientists disagreeing with each other or public view, but more a question of public demands not being met by scientists.

Understandably, much of the external factors are probably driven by the internal factors – the public want to know everything they can about this new technology, but how can the scientists explain it to them properly when there is some debate amongst themselves? If there is any disagreement within the scientific community, the public is going to become confused and eventually lose confidence in the scientific community as a whole.

Of course, some external aspects such as religion have nothing to do with any internal factors – they are protesting the entire idea, not just some small aspect of it (such as those who demand more testing or control methods).

External factors are probably driving some of the internal factors as well – the public demands to know more about things, so the scientific community is pressed to explain through experiments/observations (in other words – prove that it is or isn’t safe/good/better etc). If there are disagreements amongst the scientists, this will become public knowledge, and the public will lose confidence... the circle continues.

Danger risks versus uncertainty risks

I’m going to delay the post about the beginning of the GM controversy for a bit – I have something a bit more exciting to talk about (plus I’m finding it really hard to find out when it actually started, so I will come back to it when I find this information). Talking about the concept of ‘risk’ in class got me thinking about the risks involved with GMO.

There seems to be two classes of risks – dangerous and uncertainty. Dangerous risk is exactly as the name suggests – there is a risk of something dangerous occurring. Uncertainty risk is where we are uncertain about the exact details of something, or we are unsure of what will happen in the future.

I think GM has both types of risks.

Obviously, there is danger risk in that the food may be harmful to humans or the environment if not properly tested/controlled. There is also the danger of not letting GM food production go ahead and ending up with a food crisis somewhere along the line.

There are also uncertainty risks – there has been little or no long term effect studies conducted to determine the danger risk, there is some uncertainty as to exactly what will happen each time a new gene is inserted into a different organism.

I’m sure you can think of many other danger or uncertainty risks associated with GMO, but the main point I want to make is that this technology involved both types of risks, and for the controversy to come to a close all of these risks need to be addressed.