Ag scientists share ways to discuss technology - Iowa Farmer Today

ST. LOUIS — For years, the conventional wisdom has been that scientists speak a language not shared by the general public. Some ag eggheads are hoping to change that.

The dizzying array of advanced technology introduced into agriculture over the past 20 years or so has transformed the industry, improving efficiency, increasing yields and changing the way we talk about farming.

Explaining such intricacies to the everyday citizen is one thing. Gaining understanding may be another.

One example is the science of gene editing. It has huge potential for good, and for confusion, according to a panel discussing the issue at the Ag Innovation Showcase here Sept. 14. The annual event draws scientists and ag investors from around the world who hear about and often collaborate on new technologies.

Gene editing, often discussed using the acronym CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is one of those scary-sounding terms that requires tact and sensitivity in explaining to laymen.

“This is a new technology. The adoption of new technologies for food can be challenging,” said Neal Gutterson, vice president of research and development at DuPont Pioneer.

Rachel Haurwitz, president of Caribou Biosciences, describes the process as “the ability to go inside a living cell and precisely change the DNA sequence.”

To some that sounds like tampering with nature. To others it is basic plant breeding. The key is communicating the process in a way the target audience understands and is comfortable with, the panel agreed.

“Fundamentally, this is a breeding technology. Whatever the regulatory outcomes are, it’s ultimately going to be about the public — their perception and their comfort with the technology,” Gutterson said. “The key here is social license. The value is going to be on the public’s acceptance of this as a very comfortable technology.”

Organizations gauging the public pulse have looked deeply into acceptance — or lack thereof — of technology introduced in agriculture. Surveys indicate openness may be key.

“Are they ready for the new technology? We we say yes,” said Roxi Beck, director of the Center for Food Integrity. “We’ve really looked into what is transparency. We kept hearing people — especially around the GMO dialog — say ‘we want more transparency,’ but they couldn’t pinpoint what that meant. So we went through our research and developed a model that would help us understand the elements of transparency.

“It’s never a popular thing to say that science doesn’t rule the day in front of a crowd like this. But the bare fact is if we haven’t done what it takes to share the value and showcase that we’re committed to doing the right things for the right reasons, then we won’t have the opportunities to talk about these technologies.”

DuPont’s Gutterson said spreading the tech message across a broad spectrum is important in achieving understanding.

“One way to enhance trust is not just one big company, but many people with different approaches, serving different customers, whether national ag organization or small companies working on specialty crops,” he said. “With more uses and diversification, we have a better chance of building trust.”

Haurwitz said the language of technology can be tweaked, depending on the audience. She recommended using phrases that are appropriate for stakeholders in different settings, such as “precision breeding” or “advanced breeding.”

Gutterson pointed to outreach meetings in which layers of science are peeled away from techniques such as gene editing.

“In some of our sessions, people would say that if it’s done in a lab, it’s a GMO, but if it’s in a field, it feels OK,” he said. “That’s a pretty basic level of thinking. This is really about natural characteristics of plants — corn genes in corn, rice in rice.”

http://ift.tt/2d8PFyH