 |
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 Robin Grove-White (Convener) Ms Judith Hann Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa Secretariat Mr Richard Abel Mr Chris Hepworth Apologies for Absence 1. Professor Philip Dale, Professor Ben Mepham and Dr Ed Dart had sent apologies. Introduction 2. Robin Grove-White welcomed members to the first meeting of the public attitudes developmental group. He said that the purpose of the meeting was to consider how to approach the task of drawing up further advice to Government about the conduct of a public debate about the issue of commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom. This would be the first task for the developmental group (assuming that the Government request for the advice was formally received). 3. The Secretary said that it was likely that Government would seek advice from the AEBC, by the end of April 2002, on how and when to promote an effective public debate on possible commercialisation of the FSE crops, including the question of the co-existence of GM crops with other crops, and how to make best use of the results of such a debate. Government was also likely to ask that the advice covered how to determine public acceptability of GM crops, in particular cross-pollination and GM presence in organic crops. (Secretary’s note: this request for advice was formally received by the AEBC on 18 January.) Discussion of elements of a public debate 4. The group agreed that clarity about the purpose of conducting the debate and how people’s views arising out of it would be taken into account would be very important. The way in which the central questions for debate were framed would affect the outcome of the debate. Being clear about these points would be critical for the exercise to be credible. The aim would be to have a well-informed debate which teased out the subtleties of public attitudes and covered the range of issues raised by the question of the commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom. 5. The group noted that the views of stakeholder organisations, particularly NGOs and industry, were well known and these organisations would continue to make their views about the FSEs and commercialisation known to Government . The challenge would be to broaden the base of the debate to engage the wider public to a greater extent than hitherto. 6. The group thought that the different viewpoints within the AEBC about the issues raised by commercialisation of GM crops, building on the AEBC’s Crops on Trial report, could be a credible starting point for stimulating the wider debate. The first stage could be to have a video made which would capture the main points of a discussion at an AEBC meeting of the main issues around commercialisation of GM crops. The video could include other material to help set the background to the issues. This should be relatively cheap to produce. To ensure that the video was pitched at the right level and would be sufficiently stimulating it would need to be produced and edited by independent professionals. 7. The video, with perhaps supporting written material, could be used widely. It could be sent as an educational resource and means of stimulating debate to schools and universities; to young farmers’ groups, the Woman’s Institute and other rural bodies with an interest in the issues; and to other groups in local communities. Similarly it could be used as part of the scene-setting for a programme of events of the kind advocated in the POST report ‘Open Channels’, including, for example, a consensus conference, focus groups and a citizens’ jury. The recruitment of people and selection of inputs to these events would need to be managed to ensure the events reached a broad range of the public and were balanced and independent. The video could also be used at literature and science festivals to provide a focus for debates there. The written views of stakeholder groups on the video could also be sought conventionally. It would be useful to compare evaluation of the views of non-governmental and other stakeholder organisations with the views expressed in the debate by the wider public. A number of different bodies could be involved in running the various events. This would be the second stage of stimulating public debate. There would need to be put in place channels for collecting and evaluating the feedback, taking full account of up-to-date social scientific understanding of the issues at stake, from the events in this second stage. 8. The third stage could be to seek to have a television debate on one of the main terrestrial channels, preferably interactive, informed by some or all of the information gathered in the course of the second stage of the debate, and perhaps utilising part of the video. The principal attraction of this medium would be to reach a much greater number of members of the public than would the events in the second stage. The feasibility of this third stage depended on whether a broadcaster would be sufficiently interested in having made such a programme (or series or evening of programmes). Any television production of this sort would be produced independently from the AEBC, under the editorial control of the broadcasters, although the AEBC would want to share with the broadcaster views about the background to and shape of the programme. It might be possible to link the programme to local public debates and events as part of an evening of debate; and to an internet discussion or debate on the broadcaster’s website following the programme. 9. The group agreed that the above package had the potential to be an innovative and authentic means of stimulating public debate. The exercise might be of wider interest as something which might have the potential to be replicated when it was desired to stimulate public debate in relation to other complex and contentious areas of public policy. Hence the importance of building a strong element of potential learning, for Government and its agencies, into the programme as a whole, through the involvement of relevant academics and others looking at science and society. Work programme of the group 10. The group agreed that the advice which the AEBC should offer to Government could usefully take the form of a kind of project plan setting out what might be done, when and by whom, and which could be implemented quickly. The group would give further thought at its next meeting to fleshing out the content and timing of the possible stages of the debate discussed at the meeting. 11. The group would also give further thought to who might carry out and organise the overall debate and the particular elements in it, and to issues of breadth and depth of coverage. The group could see that Government might want to distance itself from management of the process so that the debate was seen as independent. The AEBC was not equipped at present to undertake the practical management of the whole package and the evaluation of the results of the debate. These were potentially a substantial task. The AEBC could however take part in elements of the second stage and be involved in a steering board, perhaps with one or more contractors managing the overall package. The group would give further thought to this in the light of Government’s formal request and as the elements of the debate became clearer, liaise with Government as necessary on the practical management issues. 12. The Secretariat agreed to quickly confirm dates for two meetings of the group in February, the second of which would involve a workshop with eight or nine people from organisations with an interest in public debate and consultation on science-related matters of public policy. The Secretariat in consultation with the convener would send to members for comment a list of possible attendees at the workshop. The Secretariat would also produce a draft project plan after the next meeting of the group to send to workshop attendees as a basis for discussion at the workshop. The aim would be to revise the project plan in the light of the discussion at the seminar to put to the whole Commission for discussion at the 6/7 March meeting. Action: Secretariat 13. The group noted that any particular requirements of the devolved administrations should be kept in mind in drawing up the advice to Government. 14. The group noted that DEFRA had asked to send an official to attend the group’s meetings. The group agreed to invite DEFRA to observe at least part of its meetings in order to be aware of the developing thinking of the group and to provide input on practical issues arising out of the different elements of the package of the debate. This was on the understanding that the content of the final advice to Government on the public debate would be a matter for the AEBC. 15. Dave Carmichael agreed to send to the secretariat for circulation to members relevant material he had to on consensus conferences and focus groups on biotechnology which had been held in the United States. Action: Dave Carmichael/Secretariat AEBC Secretariat January 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
