 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
PUBLIC ATTITUDES GROUP MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission PresentDr David Carmichael Professor Philip Dale Dr Ed Dart Professor Robin Grove-White (Convener) Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa Secretariat Mr Richard Abel Also present Mr Graham Davis DEFRA Apologies for Absence 1. Ms Judith Hann and Professor Ben Mepham had sent apologies. Minutes of previous meeting 2. The unconfirmed minutes of the last meeting were agreed. Introduction 3. Robin Grove-White said that the AEBC had since the last meeting of the working group received the formal response from Government to 'Crops on Trial' and in it a request for the AEBC to provide advice, by the end of April 2002, on how and when to promote an effective public debate on possible commercialisation of the FSE crops, who should be involved, and how to make the best use of the results of such a debate. The advice should also cover how to determine the public acceptability of GM crops, in particular cross-pollination thresholds and GM presence in organic crops. Drawing up draft advice would be the first task of the public attitudes working group. 4. The working group noted that a debate about the issue of commercialisation would inevitably take part against the background of discussions about the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom. The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food had now reported to Government on its recommendations for agriculture and the food chain in England, and similar discussions were taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Policy Commission had recommended that the AEBC was best-placed to advise on issues of co-existence of GM and non-GM crops. 5. The working group also noted that there had been an increase in media coverage of GM crop issues in recent weeks, particularly in relation to the last round of the FSEs for spring-sown crops. Some of the media coverage illustrated clearly how difficult it was to foster a debate that avoided caricature and polarisation of positions. Features of a public debate 6. The working group agreed that it was essential that the debate was an authentic exercise. It should cover the key issues. These included whether and under what conditions GM crops should be commercialised; co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, encompassing discussion of separation distances; adventitious presence of GM material in non-GM crops; and what sort of pattern of agriculture people wanted in the UK. The options which might be discussed in relation to these issues as part of a public debate should not be artificially constrained. 7. The programme of events to provoke debate should be designed to involve the usual stakeholders but also reach the wider public As supporters of the technology acknowledged, it would be critical for any commercialisation of GM crops to take place with a reasonable measure of public acceptance and understanding of the crops themselves and the conditions under which growing would take place. Achieving both breadth of coverage and depth of understanding of public concerns would be the aim of the programme of events. 8. It would be important for the debate to be well-informed. There was relatively unbiased general information available about GM crops. One function of the debate would be to try to make sure that such information was more widely disseminated. Timing 9. The working group thought that a debate should include discussion of possible commercialisation of other GM crops in addition to the three crops in the FSEs, although discussion would probably be focussed on the latter because their possible commercialisation was closer than for other GM crops. The group thought that there was a danger of the exercise losing credibility if the debate was concluded in advance of publication of the results from the first round of the FSEs. People might perceive that the timing was intended to get a debate out of the way in order to proceed with commercialisation as soon as possible after the FSEs results were available. On the other hand, not to begin a process of public debate until some period after publication of the FSE results would risk a less well-informed debate, conducted primarily in the media, because the FSE results would certainly be newsworthy. 10. The Government response to 'Crops on Trial' said that the public debate on the possible commercial growing of GM crops will cover the FSE results and the wider review of the other information gathered to complement the FSEs. It might be possible to construct a credible programme which incorporated the results from the FSEs but which got underway before some or all of the results were available. The working group would give the question of timing further consideration at their next meeting. In the meantime, they asked the Secretariat to liaise with DEFRA on the latest thinking on when the FSEs results would be published and to draw up options for an indicative timescale for a programme of events for discussion at the next meeting. Action: Secretariat Programme of events 11. Developing the discussion of the options considered at the working group's previous meeting, the group endorsed the idea of using a video featuring a discussion of an informal consensus conference alongside other background information. The video and supporting material would be sent as a catalyst for debate to conventional stakeholders; to schools, universities and community groups; and used as part of a number of innovative, more geographically circumscribed events such as a series of focus groups and public events. It might also be possible for the video to be used by a broadcaster to inform an interactive TV programme about the issues. 12. It was agreed that if managed and edited skilfully, this kind of video was more likely to appeal to a wider audience than a video based on a discussion round the AEBC table. The informal consensus conference could itself be informed by a 'pre-video' containing background information, perhaps with supporting documentation, for the purposes of setting the scene for discussion. Some or all of this 'pre-video' could be incorporated in the video of the discussion. 13. The working group agreed that the detailed selection of scene-setting material to include the pre-video should be left to those organising the informal consensus conference, who would need to take an independent and professional approach. The participants in the informal consensus conference would decide what other information they needed, some of which might be incorporated in the video of their discussion. The production of the video coming out of the discussion should also be independently produced, although the AEBC, as part of a steering board for the whole programme of debate, would still set the parameters for the issues to be covered in it and the ground rules for the informal consensus conference. 14. The group remained keen to explore further the possibility of an interactive television programme or series of programmes which would form part of the public debate. The group noted that the broadcaster would retain editorial control of any such programmes. But it might be possible to work constructively with programmers to integrate the television programme into the other elements of the public debate. The aim would be to break new ground. The challenge for the programme makers would be to prevent the programme becoming another stereotypical rehearsal of polarised positions. The output from the television programme was unlikely to feed into the report on the outcomes of the debate in the way as would responses from stakeholders, outcomes from stakeholders, community groups, focus groups etc. Management of the programme 15. The working group's initial thinking was that a prime contractor, independent from Government, could be appointed to manage the overall programme. The prime contractor would be responsible for engaging other organisations and individuals who should be involved in delivering the programme of events, including the evaluation of the results of the debate. It was vital that the programme of events was managed competently and that the necessary expertise was brought to bear. 16. One output from the programme of events would be that an analysis of the responses received as part of the debate should be made and given to Government. In addition the process and programme of events should be monitored and analysed upon completion so that lessons can be learned for other areas of policy-making. There should be a steering board to guide the whole programme of events from start to finish and also the evaluation of the results of the debate and of lessons to be learned from the process and programme of events. The steering board could include some AEBC members, the Royal Society and social scientists. Next steps 17. Robin Grove White reported that letters had been sent to a range of key people with experience of public debate, communication and science and society issues, inviting them to a workshop between 11am and 1pm on 20 February. It was agreed that the Secretariat would prepare a short draft presentation on the basis of the discussion that day which Robin Grove-White would deliver to open the workshop. The Secretariat would also prepare a further short draft letter to send to attendees. 18. The meeting of the working group in the afternoon of 20 February would take stock of contributions made at the workshop and consider the content of its report to the full Commission, which the Secretariat would draft following the working group meeting. Action: Secretariat AEBC Secretariat February 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
