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.